Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wantage Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

ACCIDENTS, LANCASHIRE.

1. Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the collieries in Lancashire where the number of accidents have exceeded the average for the county during 1933; and whether he will give the name of the colliery where the highest number of accidents occurred during the same period, giving separate figures of fatal and non-fatal accidents?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. It could only be obtained by calculating the death and accident rates on some comparable basis, such as shifts worked or tonnage raised, for each colliery individually, and this would involve an expenditure of time and labour that I do not feel would be justified. Further, the accident rates for individual collieries fluctuate considerably from year to year, and a comparison of the rates for a single year is liable to be misleading.

Mr. TINKER: Is not the point worthy of consideration? I believe it would draw attention to collieries where the accident rate is high and might help to reduce them.

Mr. BROWN: I have considered it, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

PROTECTIVE FQUIPMENT>

Mr. TINKER: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries are providing protective equipment against accidents, i.e., helmets, shin-guards, leather gloves, etc., for their employes; and whether they are provided free of cost to the workmen?

Mr. E. BROWN: The introduction of this kind of protective equipment for the prevention of accidents is still in its early stages. The progress made is encouraging, but details of all the pits where such equipment is under trial or in regular use have not been collected. Much work on the design, manufacture and trial of different patterns has been necessary and is still proceeding, and I hope the use of such equipment will rapidly extend as its advantages are appreciated. A general report on the matter is included in the Annual Report of the Safety in Mines Research Board for 1933, which will be published shortly. There is no settled practice as to supply. At some pits the articles are supplied free, at some others the cost is shared between owners and workmen, and some workmen are providing their own hats, gloves or boots.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. Gentleman not urge upon the employers the provision of this equipment free?

Mr. BROWN: At the moment I am more anxious to get good will behind this movement, which is in its early stages and is rapidly extending. I should not like to do anything to prevent good will.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at some collieries the fact that the men are being charged for this equipment is causing dissatisfaction and retarding progress?

Mr. BROWN: I know there are difficulties, but the chief mining engineer of the Safety in Mines Research Board is giving attention to the matter and at the exhibition at Buxton a special section is set apart for further improvement.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say in greater detail what steps the Department are taking to encourage the use of protective equipment?

Mr. BROWN: This was discussed in detail in the recent Debate on the Mines Vote.

SAFETY LAMPS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the number of safety lamps, electric lamps and naked lights used by miners in South Wales coal mines; and whether he has figures to show the extent to which electric lamps have displaced other lights in recent years?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the

SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTH.


Safety Lamps in use at 30th June in the Years 1929–1933.


At 30th June.
Number of Flame Safety Lamps in use.
Number of Electric Safety Lamps in use.
Percentage Proportion of Flame Lamps to Total Safety Lamps.









Per cent.


1933
…
…
…
…
48,530
88,016
36


1932
…
…
…
…
51,734
88,194
37


1931
…
…
…
…
58,780
91,678
39


1930
…
…
…
…
67,614
94,086
42


1929
…
…
…
…
69,109
96,193
42


Particulars are not available of the number of naked lights in use.

YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the number of boys under 16 and of young persons under 21 years of age employed in the South Wales coalfields, with the percentage of the total number employed represented in each group?

Mr. E. BROWN: At 16th December, 1933, the latest date for which the information is available, the, number of boys under 16 years of age employed in the South Wales coalfield was 5,131 or 3.6 per cent. of the total number of persons employed. Particulars in respect of young persons under 21 years of age are not available but the number between 16 and 20 years of age was 18,983 or 13.2 per cent. of the total.

Major COLFOX: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House a rough idea how many of these young persons, if any, are employed underground?

Mr. BROWN: Not without notice.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the majority of them are employed underground?

hon. Member's permission, circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the Department taking note of the effect of the change in lighting upon the number of cases of nystagmus reported?

Mr. BROWN: I hope to discuss that in discussing the reform of lighting regulations recently made.

Following is the reply:

Mr. BROWN: I prefer to give an accurate answer with notice.

VENTILATION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the number of cases where the presence of gas has been reported by firemen and deputies in the course of any recent year; and whether cases of inadequate ventilation are notified to him by colliery managers or by His Majesty's district inspectors?

Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given him in answer to similar questions on 17th April and 4th December last.

GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is his intention to take steps to make it compulsory on colliery owners to provide automatic gas detectors on every long wall-face where coal-cutting machinery is in use?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir My proposals for dealing comprehensively with the provision of firedamp detectors for use by underground workmen are con
tained in the preliminary draft of regulations on the subject which is at present under discussion with the representative bodies of the industry. The draft requires the provision of a sufficient number of detectors of an approved type, but in accordance with one of the governing principles of the Coal Mines Act, the colliery management would have the responsibility of deciding in each instance which of the various approved types of detector shall be provided.

Mr. TINKER: I do not mention any special automatic detector in the question. I 'am asking if the hon. Gentleman cannot make it compulsory to have them.

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member looks at the question, he will see that he asks for automatic gas detectors.

Mr. TINKER: Yes, but there are several types.

Mr. T. SMITH: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the suggested regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground?

Mr. BROWN: On Thursday last I had a further discussion with the workers' representatives on the lines indicated in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 19th June. I undertook, at the request of the Mineworkers' Federation, to consider the amendment of certain provisions of the draft regulations and the Federation is to consider certain suggestions made by me.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when finality will be reached in the matter?

Mr. BROWN: Not yet.

Mr. SMITH: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall deal with this matter on the Estimates to-day.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (RUSSIAN TRADE).

Mr. STOREY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the net tonnage of vessels which arrived at United Kingdom ports with cargo from Russian ports during the six months ended 30th June, 1934, was British; and whether this figure is an increase on the
figure for the six months ended 30th June, 1933?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Of the net tonnage of vessels that entered with cargo at United Kingdom ports. from Russian ports during the six months ended 30th June, 1934, 15.5 per cent. was British. The corresponding proportion for the six months ended 30th June, 1933. was 7.1 per cent.

Mr. STOREY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this increased use of British shipping under the Russian Trade Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The full effect of the agreement is not yet seen, but we have doubled the number of ships chartered for this purpose, which is remarkable.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of British ships chartered by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on time charter and on single freight charter, respectively, for the six months ended 30th June, 1934; and the figures for the same period in 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to figures supplied by the Soviet organisation in this country, the numbers are as follow:

—
Time Charter.
Single freight Charter.


6 months to 30th June, 1932.
19
146


6 months to 30th June, 1933.
—
26


5 months to 31st May, 1934. (Figures for June not yet available.)
31
179

NEW UNDERTAKINGS (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a return showing the names and addresses of all firms established in this country by foreign nationals during the past two years and showing, in each case,
the class of product manufactured, the number of employes, and the number of foreign employes?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The particulars available to the Board of Trade regarding the establishment of new undertakings have been received in circumstances which make it necessary to regard them as confidential.

FAIR, TEL AVIV.

Captain STRI CKLAND: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has yet received a report from the trade commissioner for Palestine on the trade fair recently held at Tel Aviv; and, if so, whether copies are available?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A report on the results of the trade fair held recently at Tel Aviv, although in course of preparation by the British commercial agent in Palestine, has not yet been received. I understand that a report on the fair is also being prepared and will shortly be published by the Federation of British Industries, and that copies will be obtainable in due course on application to that body.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the loss the users of real silk and rayon will have to bear owing to the reduction of import and Excise duties as from 1st July; if he is prepared to grant a rebate on stocks of raw material held by manufacturers; that the Leek Silk Dyers' and Manufacturers' Association throughout 1925 opposed the imposition of the raw material taxes; and what action he intends to take in view of these losses and the amount of revenue received by the Treasury from these taxes?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Representations have been made to me in regard to the position of holders of stocks of silk and artificial silk, but after careful consideration of the circumstances I do not feel able to make any concession. As regards the third part of the question, I am aware that in 1925 the Leek Manufacturers' and Dyers' Association, amongst others, opposed the imposition of 'the duties referred to.

BRITISH ARMY.

SERVICE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 12.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will furnish a return showing the number of ex-Army officers in receipt of pensions other than War pensions; the average amount of pension per head; and the number of such pensioners who are in paid employment while in receipt of their pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): With regard to the first part of the question, I assume that the hon. Member is referring to retired pay. If so the information will be found on pages 255 and 256 of the current Army Estimates. With regard to the second part, the answer is £330, and with regard to the last part, I regret that there is no information available.

NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (SERVICE IN EGYPT).

Mr. DENVILLE: 13.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in Northumberland that soldiers of the rank and file in the Northumberland Fusiliers who have completed their seven years' service are to be kept in Egypt for another year; how many are due for release; and if the decision can be reconsidered?

Mr. HACKING: Under the Army Act soldiers who are serving abroad can be retained for a further period of 12 months. When the Northumberland Fusiliers moved from the West Indies to Egypt last year, all soldiers who would complete their colour service by the 31st October, 1934, were permitted, as a special concession, to disembark at Southampton and remain in this country. Consequently no soldier whose seven years colour service expires before 1st November, 1934, is now serving with the battalion in Egypt. I regret that no further concession in this matter can be sanctioned.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 14.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether His Majesty's Government propose to give effect to the recommendation of the special industrial commissioner for South Wales to transfer the Arsenal from Woolwich to that area; and if he is aware that either Cardiff or Penarth could pro
vide excellent facilities for the establishment of such a munition factory whilst offering a unique position from a defensive point of view?

Mr. HACKING: No decision as to the removal of the Royal Ordnance Factories from Woolwich has been reached but I can assure my hon. and gallant. Friend that all relevant considerations would be taken into account before any such decision was reached.

Captain EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Cardiff Corporation and the Penarth Urban District Council on the point in order that those authorities may have an opportunity of laying before him certain definite practical suggestions?

Mr. HACKING: I do not think the time is yet opportune for such a deputation. There is no special inquiry taking place at present. This is a review which naturally takes place at intervals with regard to the vulnerability of War Office establishments in general. There is no special inquiry taking place other than that which takes place in the normal way.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the general opinion the object would be much more quickly achieved if the House of Commons were shifted there?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind all relevant constituencies as well as all relevant circumstances?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the use of Cambeltown in Argyllshire, which has a magnificent harbour and aerodrome?

Captain EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recommendation of the industrial Commissioner for South Wales and, in view of that recommendation, will he give me an assurance that he will receive representations at a later stage?

Mr. HACKING: I have no knowledge of any representations by the Industrial Commissioner for South Wales.

SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

15. Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: asked the Secretary of State for Scot
land how many new houses have been built in Midlothian under Government assistance in the years 1931, 1932, and 1933, and what proportion of these were two-roomed houses; and how many houses in Midlothian have been reconditioned in the same years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The numbers of new houses built with Government assistance by the local authority and private enterprise in the County of Midlothian in the years 1931, 1932, and 1933, were 14, 78 and 375 respectively. None of these houses was of two rooms. In the same years, with grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926, and 1931, the numbers of houses reconditioned were 97, 173 and 196 respectively.

Captain RAMSAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of Midlothian there is a considerable demand for two-roomed houses, and that they are meeting with the greatest difficulty in having them provided, and cannot he help in the matter?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir. I should not like in the course of question and answer to go into the matter of two-roomed houses, but I shall be very glad to discuss the subject with my hon. and gallant Friend.

PIERS AND HARBOURS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to carry out the building and reconditioning of the dilapidated piers in Argyll in terms of the scheme framed by his predecessor in the late Government; whether he is aware that there is an urgent need for a pier at Craignure, Mull, where frequently six to ten score people of all ages have to be ferried in an ancient ferry-boat to and from the steamer; that Ardgour pier is shortly to cease to be used on account of its frail condition; that the isle of Coll is fast being deserted for the want of a pier; that Lismore pier also will soon be unusable; and, as the proprietors are willing to give free sites and every facility, will he now carry out the scheme drafted by his predecessor in office?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is not aware that a scheme for the building and reconditioning of the piers referred to was framed by his predecessor
in the late Government. In reply to a question on 23rd June, 1931, the then Secretary of State indicated that legislation would be required before the matter of the piers and harbours in the Highlands and Islands could be comprehensively dealt with. A Bill on the subject has now been drafted and my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce it on an early date. With regard to the specific instances given in the question, my right hon. Friend is aware that the pier accommodation is unsatisfactory and incomplete. As regards the island of Coll, for topographical reasons the provision of a suitable pier would I understand present special difficulties both in design and cost.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that £25,000 was extracted from the estate of the late owner of Coll in the name of Death Duties, which is just about the sum required to build a pier, and that something ought to be done to make the pier, when the Coll estate has been deprived of the money which would have been applied to building it?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Member see that the legislation which he proposes to introduce takes into account all the piers against which complaints have been lodged from time to time in the West Highlands and the North coast of Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: I think that it would be wise not to anticipate any statement until legislation is introduced.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the steamer service which has been assisted by the Government is in a most excellent condition and is making a large profit, and does it not seem absurd that we should not have piers for the boats to call at when they are doing so well, and should not the Government hurry up with legislation?

Mr. SKELTON: I think that the whole question of piers so far as the Highlands are concerned can rightly be raised on the Agricultural Estimates next Friday.

STREET COLLECTIONS.

Mr. POTTER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department calls for state
ments of income and expenditure from all institutions and societies granted the privilege of flag days in London and the provinces; and whether such statements of income and expenditure are audited and certified by a member or members of one of the recognised bodies of professional accountants in England and Wales?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Under the regulations governing the holding of street collections, the promoters of each collection are required to furnish to the police authority granting the permit a statement showing in detail the amount received and the expenses incurred. These statements are required to be audited by the auditors to the society promoting the collection or other responsible person not connected with the fund. In London and in many other areas the promoters are in addition placed under an obligation to publish a resume of the financial statement in the local Press. The regulations do not require the auditors to be members of a professional association.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is there any provision to see that these accounts are audited by competent auditors irrespective of any society?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, Sir, I understand that that is so.

EDUCATION.

TECHNICAL SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES.

Mr. POTTER: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the total annual cost of the administration of all the technical schools and colleges in England and Wales, under the supervision of his Department, for each of the last five years to the most convenient date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

My Noble Friend regrets that it is not possible to give separately the cost of administration of technical schools
and colleges in England and Wales, since in the returns furnished by local education authorities administration is not differentiated from corresponding expenditure on other forms of higher education. Excluding this item the total cost of technical institutions, including evening institutes and art schools, during each of the last five years has been as follows:—

Year.
…
…
Approximate Total Annual Cost.





£


1928–29
…
…
4,895,700


1929–30
…
…
5,284,900


1930–31
…
…
5,585,800


1931–32
…
…
5,407,800


1932–33
…
…
5,279,700

Mr. POTTER: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secertary to the Board of Education the number of technical schools and colleges in England and Wales under the supervision of his Department, and the total capital expenditure on such buildings and equipment to date?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The number of recognised technical institutions in the present school year is 5,328. This includes, in addition to technical colleges and schools, evening institutes in which technical instruction may be given, and art schools. The information available is not sufficiently complete to enable an answer to be given to the second part of the question.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. LECKIE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the name of the large education authority referred to in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Report of the Board of Education for 1933, in whose area the number of over-large classes increased by 337 above the figure for 1932; and what progress is being made by the authority in question in the reduction of the number of these large classes?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The local education authority in question was Sheffield County Borough Council. In that area the number of classes with more than 50 on the roll, on the 31st March, 1933, was 430. On 31st March, 1934, the number had been reduced to 55, a decrease of 375.

UNEMPLOYMENT

DISTRESSED AREAS (COMMISSIONERS REPORTS).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the name of the distressed area from which the report of the commissioner has been received; and will he state whether the Government has now considered the report and if it is proposed to take action upon it?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The reports are given detailed consideration immediately on receipt, but, as the areas under investigation have many common features, it is not possible to come to any final decision until after the problem has been considered as a whole in the light of all the reports. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by stating which reports have or have not yet been received, but I can assure the hon. Member there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many reports have been received?

Mr. STANLEY: I think there would be an obvious disadvantage in discussing this question. All the investigators are aware of the great urgency of this matter, but naturally we want to make certain that their reports are as full and complete as possible. It might put a commissioner in a difficult position if the fact were published that all the other reports had been received, when, for some reason outside' his control, he had not been able to make his report.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when we are likely to have an opportunity of knowing the reports and of discussing their contents in this House?

Mr. STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to answers already given in this House about publication of the reports.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no thought in any way that the Government were going to let this matter drift until next Session before there was any action taken upon it; and cannot the Government give an opportunity for the discussion of this matter?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot answer as to what was thought, but I can assure the
hon. Gentleman that there is no question of this matter being allowed to drift. We are treating it as a matter of great urgency.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if there is nothing done before the House rises, it will really be next spring before anything is done at all?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not agree with that opinion at all.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House apparently will not have an opportunity of discussing this matter before November next, and that, if that be so, it will be well on to spring before anything is done at all?

Mr. DICKIE: In the event of the reports being received before the House rises with a day or two to spare, cannot the Minister give an undertaking that we shall be given an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member must be aware that it has already been stated in this House that the reports are not going to be published.

Mr. DICKIE: There cannot be anything in the reports which the Members for the distressed areas do not know, so that I cannot see why there is any reason that the reports should not be published.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BATEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the number of unemployed persons and their dependants in receipt of domiciliary relief in the county of Durham administrative area during June, 1929, June, 1930, and June, 1934, on the latest available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The average number of persons, including dependants, ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, who were in receipt of domiciliary relief in the administrative county of Durham was 20,600 in June, 1930, and 31,599 in June, 1934. The returns do not show separately the total number of unemployed persons included in these figures. Corresponding figures for June, 1929, for the administrative county are not available.

Mr. BATEY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the number of unemployed persons
and their dependants in receipt of domiciliary Poor Law relief at the latest available date?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The average number of persons, including dependants, ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, who were in receipt of domiciliary relief in England and Wales in May, 1934, was 584,476. The returns do not show separately the total number of unemployed persons included in this figure.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the returns show that about one-third are in fact unemployed persons?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: About 123,000 are registered at the Employment Exchange and about 266,000 are dependants.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Member give the figures for 30th June?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid not.

SPAIN (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST).

Mr. M ITCH ESO N: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the case of William Livesay, a British subject who was held in gaol for more than two years in Barcelona before being brought to trial for murder and found not guilty; and whether he will make representations to the Spanish Government that Mr. Livesay should be granted compensation in respect of his long detention in gaol for a crime of which he was innocent?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. This case has already been brought to my notice. My information is that Mr. Livesay admittedly killed a man who, he stated, had wronged him. He was subsequently acquitted by the Spanish courts of a charge of murder, but I understand that the Public Prosecutor has appealed against this verdict. In all the circumstances the case. does not appear to be one that calls for the intervention of His Majesty's Government. Mr. Livesay has been set at liberty.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACTS.

Major OWEN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is intended to amend the National Health Insurance Acts so as to bring within their scope all persons
who, on leaving school, enter into insurable employment between the ages of 14 and 16 years?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 19th April last.

Major OWEN: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that if this amending legislation were passed it would enable approved societies to give further additional benefits and so enable the work now being done by the local education authorities to be continued, instead of there being a gap as there is at the present time?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am aware of that fact, but the matter is probably not as simple as it would appear from the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is not the lion. Gentleman aware of the abnormal conditions which have already been created by driving these boys and girls into the Unemployment Insurance Scheme and leaving them out of the National Health Insurance Scheme?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that this is a proposal to rob the children for the benefit of the parents?

HYDE PARK (RING TEA HOUSE).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 27.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to his proposals for an extension of the Ring tea house in Hyde Park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As I am anxious to improve and extend the accommodation for meals and refreshments in the Royal Parks, I propose to extend and partly rebuild the Ring tea house in Hyde Park. I am arranging for a drawing of the new building to be exhibited in the tea room. I hope that it will be possible to commence the work immediately after this summer season.

BEER.

Mr. MITCHESON: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of barrels of beer brewed during the first three months of the present financial
year, and the number during the same period of last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The numbers of bulk barrels of beer brewed during the two periods mentioned were 5,283,000 in the three months ended 30th June, 1934, and 5,227,000 in the three months ended 30th June, 1933.

DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. MITCHESON: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can furnish an estimate of the expenditure on the defence forces this year, excluding all pensions, on the basis of the pay and prices prevailing in 1913–14 and, for comparison, the corresponding expenditure in 1913–14?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total net provision in the Estimates of the Defence Departments in the current year, excluding non-effective services, is £95,794,200. The actual net effective expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March, 1914, was £ 70,38,500. I am afraid that the calculation for which my hon. Friend asks in regard to pay and prices would involve an amount of time and labour out of all proportion to the value of the result.

MERCANTILE MARINE (PERSONNEL).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the instructions to principal officers with regard to the manning of ships contained in Circular 1463 have not been revised since 1909, and of the necessity for defining what is meant by efficient deck-hand, he will have this matter brought before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration and report?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any difficulty in the application of this circular which calls for the adoption of the course suggested in the question.

AUSTRALIA (BRITISH SETTLERS VICTORIA).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now able
to make any further statement regarding the position of the settlers whose cases were considered by the Royal Commission on Migrant Land Settlement in Victoria?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have given further careful consideration to the circumstances of those settlers from the United Kingdom whose cases were considered and whose complaints were sustained by the Royal Commission on Migrant Land Settlement in Victoria. As was announced on 22nd March last, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom felt it desirable to assist as far as possible in ensuring that the cash payments made by the Government of Victoria to those settlers who decided to accept cash compensation should not be unduly diminished, but should be available to enable them to make a fresh start in life. For this purpose they then decided to make a contribution of £10,000, should that amount prove to be required, to the fund established by the Victoria Government to assist in the payment of pressing personal debts incurred by the settlers. Of the 292 settlers concerned, the majority will, it is hoped, remain in Australia and utilise there the compensation received by them from the Government of Victoria in securing a fresh start in life. About 90, however, have returned to this country. For the same reason as that stated above—namely, in order that the capital available to enable the settlers concerned to make a fresh start in life should not be unduly diminished—His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have now decided to take into consideration the cases of those who have returned to this country. In any such case in which they are satisfied that further assistance is necessary to enable the settler to make a fresh start, they will be prepared to make an ex gratia payment not exceeding half the minimum cost of the passages home of the settler and his dependants, and also the actual loss on exchange of so much of the compensation received from the Government of Victoria as is transferred to this country. It is estimated that the total cost of this concession will amount to approximately £17,000. Any of the settlers concerned who desire to have their cases considered on the above lines should com
municate with the Oversea Settlement Department in order that a form of application may be sent to him. I may add that the total cost of all the assistance to the settlers provided out of funds made available by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will 'amount to approximately £30,000.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask whether this arrangement has been made with the settlers who have already returned from Victoria, and if it is considered satisfactory?

Mr. THOMAS: I think the hon. Member was to have been a member of the deputation to whom I explained the whole circumstances. I think I am not going beyond the actual state of affairs when I say that having regard to all the circum- stances they unanimously agreed that His Majesty's Government had gone out of their way to make it easy for all those who had suffered.

Mr. MAXTON: Will this require a supplementary Estimate?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

TURKEY (FIRING ON BRITISH NAVAL BOAT).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the circumstances under which a party of British officers bathing off the island of Samos were fired on by Turkish soldiers and a British officer killed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am not yet in a position to give much information beyond what has already appeared in the notice which was issued yesterday by the Admiralty to the Press. According to the reports received by the Admiralty, the boat in question was a skiff belonging to His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" which was lying off the Greek island of Samos. The skiff had approached under sail to within 100 yards of the Turkish mainland when some 10 soldiers appeared and, according to the reports received by the British naval authorities, waved the boat away. The boat immediately went about, but the soldiers opened fire, killing Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson and slightly wounding Lieu tenant Maunsell in the shoulder. Search is being continued for Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson's body.

On hearing of these events I immediately asked the Turkish Ambassador to come to see me, and after detailing the circumstances to him as far as they were known to me, drew attention to the gravity of this occurrence. Fethi Bey undertook to telegraph immediately to his Government on the subject, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey has also been instructed to take the matter up with the Turkish Government on similar lines. I understand that the Turkish Ambassador has now received some information and communicated it to the Foreign Office this morning, but I cannot yet give any further details.

I am sure that the House will join with His Majesty's Government in our regret that this unhappy incident should have occurred and in expressing our deep sympathy with the relatives.

Mr. PETHERICK: Can my right hon. Friend state at this juncture whether the boat in question was in a prohibited area or not?

Sir J. SIMON: No Sir. I cannot give that information at present. I do not think that it would be desirable to make statements which might be challenged. The Turkish Ambassador has some information and so have we and, of course, we are collating it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what Votes in Supply it is proposed to take on Friday?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Supplementary Estimate for the Fishery Board for Scotland, also the main Estimate for the same Department, and the Estimates for the Departments of Health and of Agriculture, Scotland.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be considered before Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

BILLS REPORTED.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934).

Estimate presented—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee. [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934.

CLASS VI.

MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding 137,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

3.21 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I endeavour to be as brief as possible in discussing the multifarious subjects which come under this Vote, bearing in mind the fact that the Mines Department has already made an unusual draft on the time of Parliament in regard to legislation this Session and furthermore that we recently had an opportunity of discussing for nearly a day the health and safety side of the Department's work. Therefore I hope that hon. Members will absolve me from any charge of lack of appreciation of the gravity of the many subjects involved in this Vote, if I deal with them shortly and call special attention only to three or four outstanding points. The first thing which I ask the Committee to consider is the production of derivatives from coal and the questions of fuel treatment and fuel economy. There has been a great deal of progress made recently in the use of pulverised fuel. An experiment has been made by the Cunard Company in regard to colloidal fuel and I had the opportunity during the past year of opening the first public filling station in connection with the use of compressed gas for motor vehicles. Hon. Members will also know from recent Debates on the Measure for assisting the production of oil from coal that there has been a marked improvement in connection with production by the process of low temperature carbonisation and
that work on the new undertaking at Billingham, where oil is to be produced from coal by the hydrogenation process, is well up to schedule. If any hon. Member desires to ask any questions I shall be pleased to answer them but I do not want to go into detail further than to point out three things, the first is that with regard to pulverised fuel, the quantity used in powdered form last year was 4,010,000 tons, an increase of 336,000 tons on the year before. As regards colloidal fuel I would draw attention to a remark by the chairman of the Cunard Company. Commenting on the experiment carried out in one of their oceangoing boats he said:
In conjunction with other important interests the question of its commercial development is being actively pursued.
I can add that other concerns are also carrying out experimental work.

Mr. PALING: Is that all the information the hon. Gentleman has to give?

Mr. BROWN: At the moment that is all the information I can give.

Mr. PALING: Have they completed these experiments?

Mr. BROWN: Not at the moment. I understand that they have to consider the technical side very thoroughly in order to be able to see whether commercial developments can be made. At the moment that is all I can say on that point. With regard to compressed gas there have been interesting developments. There was a demonstration recently in Palace Yard of vehicles run by various kinds of products and derivatives of coal. There was one vehicle using compressed gas enriched with a small quantity of cresote or similar oil and I would call the attention of hon. Members who are interested in the question to the fact that far better results were obtained in this way—indeed I may say the radius obtained by the vehicle was thereby doubled. Hon. Members know that that is one of the biggest problems in connection with the use of this particular product of coal.
With regard to the low temperature carbonisation process, I can report this progress compared with last year. There are now nine plants in operation on a commercial or semi-commercial scale. Compared with 1932 the quantity of coal carbonised has increased by 95,087 tons to 318,000 tons or 42 percent. The out
put of smokeless fuel has increased from 163,000 tons to 222,000 tons or 36 per cent. and the yield of crude spirit has increased by 311,000 gallons to 741,000 gallons or 72 per cent. At those plants where the gas was "scrubbed" for spirit, the yield has increased from an average of 2.2 gallons per ton to 2.7 gallons. There was for some time an Air Squadron operating exclusively on low temperature carbonisation spirit with satisfaction to the Air Ministry. There are now seven squadrons flying on this spirit, that is to say 7 per cent. of the total aviation spirit consumed by the Ministry is derived from coal. The Admiralty in 1933 contracted for a bulk supply of fuel oil made by the low temperature carbonisation process and it was found satisfactory. The latest features about the hydrogenation process are as follows. Up to 13th July orders had been placed or expenditure incurred to the amount of £1,850,000 in connection with the plant at Billingham representing the employment directly and indirectly of 13,370 men. The early part of next year will, I understand see the plant operating and if I have the privilege of introducing the Estimates next year we shall be in a position to discuss this great undertaking actually in work.
May I now call the attention of the Committee to the processes with regard to economy in the use of fuel? There has been a great extension since last year in the work of cleaning, washing, grading and blending of coals. I draw attention to this matter in the early part of my speech for one reason. All these various processes which I have already mentioned are concerned with the production of derivatives and therefore with the use of more coal. On the other hand, there are these other processes which involve. fuel economy and which mean the use of less coal because a better calorific value is got out of it. That raises a problem for industry as a whole to which I would direct attention.
There are four points resulting from this. First, a demand for coal in a different form; second, a demand for coal of different grades; third, a greater demand for coal on the one hand; and, fourth, in so far as there has been fuel economy, a smaller demand. There are indications from South Staffordshire and Worcester
shire in the direction of a revaluing of prepared coals to which I would like to draw attention. Much progress has recently been made in the treatment of coal at washing and cleaning plants in those areas. No coal was dealt with in this way in those areas prior to 1930. In 1933 the proportion of output so treated was about 30 per cent. Of course, a much higher percentage would be shown in terms of the actual small coal which can be used for this purpose. The average selling price of all the coal raised in these districts, increased by nearly ls. per ton between 1929 and 1933. The point to which I desire to direct the attention of the industry, through this Committee, is this: scientific and technical treatment should surely bring a reward to the coal industry if it provides coal of a greater calorific value to the consumer.
We recently had a debate on welfare questions and I need only add one word on that subject. Hon. Members may desire to know the progress made with pithead baths. I have been informed that there are open and completed at the moment 145 baths provided out of the Welfare Fund and under construction 25, making a total of 170. Hon. Members will also know that, previous to the establishment of the fund, there were 32 other baths, so that at the moment we have 202 pithead baths either constructed or under construction, and the number of employes provided with baths is 248,332, nearly one-third of the men on the books of the collieries. The question of safety in mines was also the subject of debate recently, and in my opening speech I desire to call attention to only one subject, the great reform undertaken in the new regulations regarding lighting. I have heard them described by a prominent mining engineer this week as being in his judgment, the greatest reform for a generation.
I may briefly summarise the effects of the new Order, hoping it will be discussed at greater length during the Debate. The Order falls into three parts. Part I, which comes into operation on 1st September next, deals with lighting by means of safety lamps; Part II with lighting by means otherwise than by safety lamps; and Part III with lighting above ground and with the very important subject of whitewashing underground. Part II comes into operation
on 1st July this year and Part III into operation on 1st September this year. Part I of the Order is designed to raise the standard of lighting by means of safety lamps, and it is estimated that inside the two and a-quarter years allowed for the change-over the lamps provided under the new standard will give twice as much light as the lamps now used, and 300,000 lamps will have to be replaced. That is a very considerable reform. As regards Part II, in safety-lamp mines the use of fixed lights pro- vided by current from the electric mains has hitherto been restricted to areas not within 300 yards of the face. Part II extends this lighting, under special precautions, to roads ventilated by intake air up to 50 yards from the working face, and in other roads up to 100 yards from the working face. Part III provides for sufficient lighting on the surface where persons regularly work, and underground at shaft insets and shaft sidings; while the whitewashing will take place compulsorily at important places underground such as sidings, landings, pass-bys, off- takes, and rooms containing engines, motors, and other appliances. I agree with the mining engineer I have quoted that this Order will mark a very great step forward in the matter of under-ground lighting.
Next I have a few words to say on the conditions in the industry from the point of view of wages, overtime and hours. Last year I pointed out that there were four outstanding features on this side of the industry, namely, the continuous drop in production, the stability of prices, the stability of wages and the stability of the cost of production, especially considering that the cost of production had to be reckoned in terms of a much smaller output than formerly. I am happy to say that I have no longer to report a drop in production. I ventured to prophesy from this Box last year, speaking amid some scepticism, that we had reached bottom. Happily that prophecy has proved not only true but more than true, for by the autumn of last year production had begun to move up, as I shall show by a table of figures towards the end of my speech. With regard to the other three points the facts remain the same. The annual cash earnings in 1932 were £109 8s. 5d. and in 1933 were £110 5s. 10d., an increase of just under £1.

Mr. T. SMITH: How many men are employed?

Mr. BROWN: I am coming to that. If hon. Members want the amount per shift, that information is available; but seeing that we have so short a time to-day I thought I would not give more figures than necessary of those which are available in the various statistical publications of the Department, which hon. Members have in their hands, because they know that it is not easy to make a short speech on this great Vote. As regards hours, conditions remain as before; and with regard to the cost of production, what I said last year remains true. It has been very remarkable how the cost of production has remained stable despite the lesser output up to September of last year. I wish to deal rather more fully. though not at complete length, with another subject which has occupied the attention of some Members, and that is overtime. Spasmodic complaints were made two years ago and last year about overtime.

Mr. TINKER: They were not spasmodic, they were pretty regular.

Mr. BROWN: I say "spasmodic" in the sense that they were not made to me from organised bodies on a basis of evidence. Until November of last year I did not receive an official complaint from the Mineworkers' Federation. When I said they were spasmodic I did not mean to belittle the number of complaints, but only to indicate that they came from certain areas and from certain Members and were not put up as covering the whole country—not until November of last year. The point at issue was whether or not in the light of the development of machine mining, there was any need for amendment of the Act of 1908, which provides for a certain amount of overtime, known popularly as emergency work. I offered to have an examination made by skilled mining engineers in any area selected by the Mineworkers' Federation, and they decided that they would like an investigation made in Lancashire. Two mining engineers not ordinarily connected with the inspectorate—I would have the Committee notice that—or with the Mines Department, were selected to carryout this work. Their report is now before the House. I expect that hon. Members will want to analyse it in detail and therefore I will
reserve any remarks as to its details until my reply. I may sum up the whole of the report in one sentence, which is taken from the report. The considered view of the inspectors was:
that the greater part of the overtime disclosed may reasonably be regarded as necessary for the proper and efficient working of the mines.
That sums up the report in a nutshell. There are differences of opinion on the Opposition side of the House about the report. At the moment I have received no detailed criticism from representative bodies. Yesterday I received a letter from the Lancashire and Cheshire Mineworkers' Federation, in general terms. Since I have received no detailed criticism I have invited the views of the representative bodies. The report is so ably drawn up and the Schedule to it is so comprehensive and so detailed that Members will need to bring forward very great proof of some of the general statements which they make, if they desire to rebut the report. There is only one other preliminary remark, and that is upon the point, which is one of gravity, concerning deputies and the amount of overtime that has been worked by them. I propose to invite the Deputies and Firemen's Association to discuss that point with me, because that is the only serious point which has arisen from the evidence. Employment was slightly less irregular than in 1932. The average number of days lost through lack of trade was 63 in 1932, but in the first half of 1934 the number was 22 1/2. That is an improvement over the figures for the corresponding period in 1932 and 1933, and is the same as in 1928 and 1929. The workmen on the books increased from 782,400 at the end of 1932, to 793,500 at the end of March, 1933. There is, of course, a seasonal decline from March to October, but I am happy to say that the seasonal decline is less than it was a year ago. As a matter of fact, the graph in my room at the Mines Department five weeks ago showed that the actual number on the books was down to about the level of previous years. The improvement is only slight, and the figure is at the moment about 3,000 more. I know hon. Members will be asking how the figure is to be reconciled with the figures of the Ministry of Labour. The answer is quite simple. The figures are
arrived at upon an entirely different basis and for an entirely different purpose. For the latest Ministry of Labour figures the last week at the end of the quarter was taken, where, from lack of trade or lack of quota, there is normally a larger number of men temporarily stopped than there might be a week before, or even three days before. The figures published show that there has been a slight drop, while the figures of men employed in the mines indicate that there is nothing more than a seasonal variation.
With regard to the Convention for regulating hours of work in the coal mines, the tripartite meeting was held at Geneva in June last and was attended by employers', workers' and Government representatives from Belgium, France, Great Britain, Holland, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The meeting felt that it would not be possible to secure a simultaneous ratification of the Convention unlels certain points of difficulty felt by various countries could be met, and decided, to send to the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation a list of five such points. On one of those points the difficulty was felt by Belgium, France and Great Britain, and on another by Belgium and Great Britain. The three remaining points were all raised by other Governments than that of Great Britain.
A word about the economics of the industry: It is sufficient to say that an analysis of all the figures in the ascertainments show an improvement last year as compared with the year before. In regard to the state of the industry, and particularly of the export trade, hon. Members will have gathered that, in the quarter ending September, 1933, an improvement began to show itself in output. I do not say that with any sense of complacency, because it is a matter of great thankfulness that, among the nations of the world and in the present state of the world demand for coal, that should be so. In view of the state of the world, hon. Members would naturally expect the improvement in home trade, especially considering the startling improvement in iron and steel, to have been greater than the improvement in export trade. I would point out to hon. Members that the downward curve of exports has not merely stopped but has begun to move up again slightly in the last six months. I will
trouble the Committee with a few figures in regard to that. In the year before the great depression, 1929, we exported 76,500,000 tons, including foreign bunkers. This dropped by 1932 to 53,000,000, and last year it showed 52,500,000 tons. The latest returns for the six months of 1934 compared with the same period of 1933 show an increase of 652,000 tons. That is a slight but very welcome sign of a move upwards in the export trade.
In some quarters it has been said that there has been a very heavy adverse repercussion in some districts because of the benefits that have been gained by other districts, as a result of the many trade agreements secured by the Government. I propose to analyse that. In some quarters those adverse effects have been very grossly exaggerated. There are only three important European countries exporting coal, Germany, Poland and ourselves. The international problem of markets and prices is mainly confined to Europe. It is true that the United States of America also export coal, but she sells the bulk of her surplus across her northern frontier in Canada. Certain nations of the world have developed their power to supply while demand has lessened, and it is the relationship of the European demand to the available productive capacity and not the relation between demand and production which is at once the cause and the measure of our problem. I do not think any hon. Member can speak too highly of the effect of the trade agreements. Some hon. Members may not understand how wide and how varied they are and how hard and complicated was the work put into them, not only by the Board of Trade and the Mines Department, but by all those in the technical Departments of Government and industry who devoted themselves to working out the details of the trade agreement.
Let me give the Committee some facts. With the exception of the German Agreement, which has now operated for one year, and with regard to which I propose to give some figures in a moment, none of the other agreements has operated for the full year on which we propose to estimate the results, but I will give the gains in exports within the areas of the agreements over and above the years 1931, 1932 and 1933; and I would point out to the Committee that no fair judgment can
be reached as to the benefit of the agreements and the negotiations which led up to them unless those years are all taken into account, for we began to gain the moment it was seen that there was a change of policy in this country. In addition to the gains in 1931, 1932, and 1933, we had an increase in these agreement markets, in the first six months of 1934, of 1,279,000 metric tons. Anyone who looks at the results on the East Coast of Scotland or the North-East Coast of England will know what a great advantage that has been to the mining industry in those areas.
The problem still remains, however, that there is also intensified competition. There are cut prices by Poland, there are cut prices by Germany, there are cut prices for coals in every market. I quite understand the views of hon. Members from South Wales, who are very properly interested in this subject, and that is why I have raised it, because I think it is of advantage that it should be discussed in the light of the information available. As regards the agreement countries and South Wales, which is particularly affected in this matter, I would point out that, during the 12 months ending in May, 1934, the exports from Bristol Channel ports to all destinations were 15,823,000 tons, as against 16,457,000 tons in the previous year. But I would also point out that this decrease was foreseen by the Mines Department before the discussion about the trade agreements began, and it was not merely foreseen, but our policy of pressing for every advantage that could he gained by agreements was communicated both to the Mining Association of Great Britain and to the coal exporters of Great Britain, and was clearly understood before the discussions began.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: May I ask whether the exporters in South Wales anticipated this reduction in the case of Italy and France?

Mr. BROWN: I do not accept the word "reduction" in that sense, and I hope to give some figures later which will put the matter in another perspective; but they certainly appreciated these facts, as did the Mines Department, which went out of its way to point out to these bodies that if by these agreements it were possible to get Polish or other coal off certain markets, there might be repercussions elsewhere. The answer was that
it was mudh harder for them to compete in any other markets than in the Scandinavian and Baltic markets. That was put plainly, before the discussions, not only to the Mining Association but to its constituent bodies when they came to see us.

Mr. G. HALL: The exporters and others in South Wales declare that whatever advantage has been gained by the North-East Coast as a result of the trade agreements has been gained as a result of a detrimental effect on the South Wales export trade.

Mr. BROWN: That is why I said that the result has been exaggerated in certain quarters. I hope to prove by figures and fact that that is not so. I have raised this matter because I think it is to the advantage, not merely of South Wales, but of the whole country, that the matter should be put in its proper perspective. The facts are that, as regards the agreement countries, the South Wales ports have gained slightly. During the twelve months ended in May, 1933, they exported to the agreement countries 1,728,000 tons, and in the twelve months ending May, 1934, 1,767,000 tons. Therefore, there has been a slight increase in the exports from those ports. With regard to the other problem, it is quite clear that, if Great Britain had entered upon a price cutting campaign, she could have stood the strain longer than her competitors, but we regard this as an undesirable policy. The German coal industry subsidises its coal exports to the extent of from 5s. to 7s. a ton if necessary, by a levy on output. The ability of Poland to conduct a competitive campaign is largely attributable, in the first place, to low wages; secondly, to the fact that they are content with a pithead price of 6s. per ton for their export coal, which is made good by an inland price of no less than 16s. per ton at the pithead; and, thirdly, to abnormally low railway rates—a maximum of 3s. per ton on export coal for a haul of 340 miles to the port. We believe that the only permanent solution is to be found in international agreements between producers about markets and prices. On the initiative of my Department, discussions have been commenced between the coal-owners of Great Britain and the coal-owners of Poland. The Polish coalowners
have visited our country, and there have been discussions on this side, and at the moment the Mining Association of Great Britain is awaiting a communication from the Polish coalowners.
With regard to the effect of the trade agreements on other British markets, as I said just now their adverse effect has been grossly exaggerated in some quarters. With regard to the French market, an agreement has been reached which assures us of our fair share of French coal imports which are subject to restrictions, and secures for us fair competition in those classes of coal which are not subject to restrictions—a most important point. This means that, as long as matters remain as at present, we secure 877,000 tons per annum more than we should have had but for the agreement, which is a much larger achievement than some critics have been inclined to concede. With regard to Poland, by far the greater part of Poland's increased exports this year have been absorbed in Belgium, Italy, and the Irish Free State. With regard to Belgium, the position is due, not so much to the effect, as is alleged, of the trade agreement, but to the virtual abandonment of the quota system. At the moment we are making representations to the Belgian Government in the interests of a fair share of the trade for our coal industry. With regard to the Irish Free State, the situation is explained, not by the trade agreements, but by conditions of which the Committee are well aware—matters of high policy which have nothing whatever to do with the trade agreements.
In the market where the issue chiefly arises, namely, that of Italy, where the imports from Germany have increased even more than the imports from Poland, the explanation has little or nothing to do with the trade agreements. The loss of South Wales in this market is attributable almost solely to the loss of orders from the State railways. I may tell the Committee that the question of a resumption of those orders is one of the subjects at present under discussion, and, if they should be resumed on the previous scale, the position of South Wales as regards exports of coal to Italy would be improved both relatively and absolutely as compared with the position in any of the last three years, 1931, 1932, or 1933. In
the first place, the Committee will understand that Italy's total imports of coal have themselves declined. In 1929, they amounted to 13,525,000 tons; in 1930, to 12,208,000 tons; in 1931, to 10,370,000 tons; in 1932, to 8,017,000 tons, and in 1933 to 8,790,000 tons. Therefore, Italy's total import of coal is much smaller than it was four years ago; and, whereas in 1930 the State railways purchased 1,136,844 metric tons of British coal, in 1933 they purchased none. Therefore, if they had bought as much in 1933 as they bought in 1930, South Wales exports to Italy in 1933, namely, 2,278,385 metric tons, would have been increased to 3,415,229 metric tons, or 38.9 per cent. of the total imports of 1933. I submit that these facts and figures show quite clearly that my statement was literally accurate, that those who talk in general terms about the adverse effect of trade agreements with Scandinavia, Germany and other countries have no foundation for their statements, as an analysis of the figures will show.
Let me turn, finally, to the sign of betterment which is to be found in the figures of coal output. Last year, of course, was our lowest year for many years, the figure being 1,000,000 tons less than in 1932, but it must be remembered 'that there were 3,000,000 tons less in the first half year of 1933 as against 1932, and in the second half 2,000,000 tons more, so that in the end we finished 1,000,000 tons down. The country, I think, will be interested in the figures for the four quarters beginning in July a year ago. The signs of improvement began in the quarter ending September, 1933, and they have been maintained throughout the current year. The output for those four quarters is as follows: For the quarter ending September, 1933, 47,121,000 tons, an increase of 810,500 tons over the corresponding quarter of the previous year; for the quarter ending December, 1933, 55,692,100 tons, an increase of 1,120,900 tons; for the quarter ending March, 1934, 59,668,800 tons, an increase of 3,491,900 tons over the corresponding quarter of the previous year; for the quarter ending June, 1934, 52,412,900 tons, an increase of no less than 4,297,100 tons over the corresponding period of last year. It means two things. The increase for the half year of 1934 over the half year of 1933 has been no less than 7,789,000 tons, and the in
crease for the four quarters has been no less than 9,720,400 tons.
That, I venture to say, is a very pleasant statement for any Minister of Mines to make after the depressing experience we have been through during successive years since the great slump began in 1930. Again, I say that I do not quote these figures with any degree of complacency, but as a measure of thankfulness. The distribution, of course, varies according to districts. Some benefit more than others, but in the result all have their share. The largest share for the first half of 1934 was Durham, the increase being 1,860,000 tons. [Interruption.] I should have thought that those living in that area would have been the first to welcome that fact.

Mr. BATEY: It did nothing but injury to us.

Mr. BROWN: That figure of 1,860,000 tons represents an increase of 13.7 per cent. In South Wales there was an increase of 455,000 tons, or 2.6 per cent. That was the smallest of the important districts. All these figures are published in the Returns, but I have taken the largest and the smallest as giving a fair indication of the unequal distribution.
I had intended saying something about shipments abroad and home consumption, but I am afraid that I have detained the Committee too long already. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] Let me add one thing. I cannot stand at this Box at the end of this Session, which has seen a larger output of measures for the good of the coal industry than any Session in the history of the Mines Department—

Mr. BATEY: For the good of the coal-owners.

Mr. BROWN: If any Minister of the hon. Member's party had produced a Bill making possible the greatest experiment for producing oil from coal, I can understand the kind of speech the hon. Member would have made in Durham every week-end. In this Session we have put through that Act. We have also put through the Welfare Act, a problem that was left by the Labour Ministry for the National Government to face. We have put through a Bill dealing with working facilities for metalliferous mines, and the Bill 'and Orders which we passed for the revision of the working of the Act of 1930 for
greater elasticity in the export trade on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the amendment, with which hon. Members opposite are so much concerned, for the coordination of minimum prices which, I believe, will be a very great reform. We have also put through that great Order for the reform of lighting in mines, together with the Petroleum (Production) Bill. All this has not been done without very intensive work on the part of the Department, and I should be lacking in my duty if I did not pay my small tribute to the Under-Secretary for Mines and the whole of the staff for their extraordinarily hard work in what, I believe, the House as a whole will admit has been a most successful year.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Mines inform the Committee what progress has been made in amending the Silicosis Order?

Mr. BROWN: I shall be very pleased to deal with that in the course of my reply. I could not make too large a demand upon the patience of the Committee.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Minister's speech reminded me of an incident in connection with the tablet in Westminster Hall where Warren Hastings stood his trial, and where he was so overcome and impressed by the eloquence of Burke that he felt that he was guilty, though he knew all the time that he was innocent. Judging by the effect of the hon. Member's speech upon Government supporters, it would appear that whatever their doubts may have been about the mining industry, the Secretary of Mines has convinced them that all is well. We who are familiar with the industry cannot agree, and that is why this afternoon we must express our disgust with what the Government and the Minister of Mines have done in relation to the mines. In the first place, I would like to say to the hon. Member that we welcome his statement about baths. It has our generous acceptation. Anything in that movement will meet with our approval. Then what he had to say about lighting appeals to all of us. We know what infliction is caused by miners' nystagmus due to bad lighting
and other conditions in which the men have to work. We know that improved lighting will lessen that, and anything which leads to better conditions for the workers will receive our commendation.
Anyone who has had anything to do with mining for a lengthy period will wonder why we have kept slipping back year after year with no improvement at all. Taking the last 12 years, we find that while output has increased, owing to the improved technical skill of the miner, by as much as 25 per cent. per man shift, wages have fallen by 28 per cent., and the number of those employed by about 300,000, or nearly 30 per cent. Naturally, therefore, we cannot view the position with satisfaction, although we may be assured by various Secretaries for Mines that we must wait a little longer for an improvement. We are always told in mining Debates that the mining position is going to be better, and the Secretary for Mines has now given some figures to show the improvement. I rather doubt it. Last year, in quoting the 1932 figures, he said the output was 21.99 cwts. per man shift, and the earnings 9s. 2d. per man shift, or 42s. per week. I have taken some trouble to go through the figures. The last return I could get is for the March quarter. The output per man shift was 23.3 cwt., an increase of 1 1/3 cwt., whereas the wages had fallen from 9s. 2d. in 1932, to 9s. 1.79d. in the first quarter this year—a slight drop, but it shows the tendency of wages to fall. There has been a gradual increase of output, but a gradual fall in wages. When is this increased output to be recognised and better wages paid to the workers?

Mr. PIKE: Has there not been an increase in the number of persons employed? Has that not reduced the average?

Mr. TINKER: The things are different. I want to deal with the wages. The Secretary for Mines said that there had been an increase to £110 per annum over 1932. Granting the increase, can anyone look with complacency on a figure of £110 per annum to a worker to pay for rent and household necessities? It has to be remembered that £110 is the outside figure given by the Secretary for Mines. Surely it will be recognised here that, granting those figures to be accurate, we
cannot rest with a wage like that. Now as to the figures given about the number of workmen employed. I have them here. They have gone down in the March quarter to 751,000, which is much below the figure given by the Secretary for Mines. He gave the figures for 1932 as 802,000, and then, to help himself out of a difficulty, he said that in the June quarter last year it had fallen to 768,000—a record low figure. This year the number has fallen to 751,000 for the March quarter. I want the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to deal with this figure. Therefore, we cannot accept what the Secretary for Mines says about the position in the mines as to the wages, hours and things of that kind, and we must urge what we think ought to be done.
There is a point upon which I wish to touch. From time to time I have brought forward the question of deep mine working, and I expected the Secretary for Mines to refer to the point this afternoon, because he would have in his mind the fact that I intended to raise it. From time to time I have been trying to point out to the House the conditions in which many of our people are working. I have given an example in my own constituency of a mine where they have been getting to a depth of over 4,000 feet and the conditions there are deplorable. The temperature given by the Secretary for Mines the other week showed as much as 104 to 106. I put it to hon. Members who are suffering under the intense heat that we are having, that you can go through the Lobbies of this House and find men or women with hardly enough energy to carry on. You can say to them, "How are you feeling?" and the reply is, "I do not seem to have any energy at all." Let hon. Members imagine themselves down in a mine at a temperature of from 104 to 106 degrees, where men have to get a living and slave to get it, and they will realise what it means to those people.
I am told that a week last Friday a certain number of men and women from this House went to inspect a mine in North East Derbyshire. I was invited to go, and I would have gone had I been able, but I asked one of the Members, "How did you feel?" He said, "Not so very well. The mine was 600 yards deep, and we were provided with overalls, but some of the deputation did not trouble to take off some of their garments, and the results seemed to be
rather funny when they got back." One was a lady. All credit to her for going to see the mine, because it is only in that way that you can get to know the actual conditions, but I understand that the lady, brave as she was, had rather a hard time, and had to be attended to to be brought back to normal.

Miss WARD: I happened to be the hon. Member concerned, and I do not in the least mind the hon. Member giving a very vivid description of our excursion underground, but, as a matter of fact, as the hon. Member was not there, he cannot possibly tell in what frightfully good spirits everybody came up from the mine. I must dispute his statement that I had to be brought back to normal. If I have the good luck to be called in this Debate, I will give my story to set against the hon. Member's. At the same time, I agree about the conditions when you get very far underground, far below where we were last Friday.

Mr. TINKER: I may have overdrawn the picture, and I hope the hon. Lady has an opportunity of giving her version during the Debate, but I am not saying this in any light-hearted spirit. I went down the Parsonage Colliery, Leigh, in October, 1933. I am one of those who try to keep physically fit, but when I returned I was more exhausted than ever I had been in my life before. I was thoroughly done up, and I can quite understand anyone who goes down in such a mine feeling bad. I would like many hon. Members to take an opportunity of going down one of these mines to see for themselves. This is a, modern mine that these ladies and gentlemen went down, well ventilated, and, of course, the deputy would be prepared for them when he knew that a deputation was coming, but when you get down twice as deep as that, and you know the difficulties of ventilation and what it will mean, you can realise the position of the miners who have to work down there. My object is to arrest the attention of the Committee and of the Mines Department in the hope that this matter will be dealt with. These mines are going deeper and deeper, and we have got to draw attention to it, so that something shall be done in this connection. I am not blaming the management, who try to combat all the difficulties that they meet, but you can arrive at a time when
it is impossible for men to work with that degree of comfort to which we claim every British workman is entitled; and when we arrive at that point, whatever the economic factors may be, it is time to step in and say, "No farther shall this mine go." They have been described as the hell pits of civilisation, but I should say they were more like hell furnaces when I was down. Therefore, I hope the Secretary for Mines will impress upon his subordinates to keep a close watch on this matter.
I want to turn to the question of overtime. We have tried to bring this to the notice of the Government from time to time, so as to have the matter attended to. The report which has been issued states:
Representations have from. time to time been made to the Secretary for Mines to the effect that overtime was being extensively and habitually worked.
The hon. Gentleman admits that, and he has had a report from the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. We appointed a deputation to meet the Secretary for Mines, because we realised that this was a big thing that we were attempting, and we wanted a thorough examination of the matter from both sides, so that whatever the findings might be, whichever side was hit the hardest, there could be no complaint that they had not had a chance of putting their case. We met the Secretary for Mines, and he quite openly said, "What do you suggest?" We suggested that for every section of the coalfield the Department should consult with the miners' agents, who are paid by the men to look after the grievances of the men and to meet the employers, who always receive them. We have made a number of complaints about overtime, and these complaints have passed through the miners' agents, because we have to recognise that when men working in the pits complain to the management about overtime, it may be said that nothing will happen to them, but we know only too well what does happen to them. At the moment nothing may happen, but before very long a man who has complained is told by someone that he had better keep his mouth shut, or it will not be very pleasant for him, so we get our complaints through the miners' agents, who will not give a man
away, knowing what will happen to him if they do.
We therefore suggested to the Secretary for Mines that when his inspector went down he should consult with the miners' agent for the district which was being examined, and we could put our point of view before him and, if necessary, attend at the pits to help in the investigation. I thought that that was going to be done, as the suggestion was well received by the Secretary for Mines, but later he told us he could not do it. I do not know what were the reasons for that decision, but they proceeded without our side of the case being put. The men appointed by the Secretary for Mines went to examine a dispute in a case where the employers said they were carrying out the Act of Parliament, and we said they were not. They only put evidence from one side, the employers' side, and does anyone imagine that that is satisfactory? We make a complaint, and we are not called in at the examination. It is left to one side only, and that is not at all satisfactory to us.
I will turn to the appendix to this report, where we find that the examination commenced on the 14th February, and the deputation went down to the collieries and examined the time books, or the eight-hours books in which overtime has to be entered, for the six weeks prior to the 17th February. They examined a pit where we had been complaining of overtime being worked and where we said the time books were not kept properly. They went dawn and examined the time books from the 17th February backwards for six weeks, and they reported that they had examined 120 collieries and that 16 of them had no overtime worked at all; and in their comments in not one case could it be said, from the employers' point of view, that the Act of Parliament had been broken. Does that not convey to anybody that something must be wrong? Surely, in a survey of 120 collieries, there must have been one or two at the least where a breach of the Act was found, but in their survey not one could they find, and they go on to say—and this is an unbiased examination—
The results of the inquiry indicate that, at any rate so far as Lancashire is concerned, apprehensions that the law in regard to overtime is being deliberately and systematically violated are without foundation.
They say lower down:
No evidence is forthcoming from this inquiry which points to the necessity for amendment of the Act of 1908 in regard to overtime.
Of course, there will not be any evidence from the employers' side. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) is a colliery owner, and when the Secretary for Mines read out this report he said, "Hear, hear!" That is an indication of the mentality of the coal owners' side and, too, of the mentality of many of the inspectors, who have in their minds the idea that if work can be found for workmen and they win earn £110 a year, with a chance of working overtime, they should take the opportunity. That may be right from their point of view, but it is not right from our point of view, and, therefore, we say that this inquiry is altogether invalid, because only one side had a chance of stating their views.
With regard to consultation with checkweighmen, who are appointed by the workmen, we are told in the report that "the checkweighmen were personally consulted," and generally did not express any dissatisfaction. It seems to me that the whole thing was slipshod all the way through. Then they go on to say, in order to justify their action, that
at most of the mines, however, the Special Inspectors were voluntarily supplied by the management with records of the total number of shifts paid for each week during the period of the investigation, and these records, with very few exceptions, proved closely comparable with the number of shifts entered in the time registers.
Again the employers' side only ! Imagine those men giving anything to indict themselves. It would be asking too much to expect that. We are asked to accept this report to-day and to believe that the Mines Department have done their very best to find out whether overtime is being worked. Instances have happened since. One was an accident where a number of men were killed, and at the coroner's inquiry it 'was proved that a boy who lost his life in that disaster had gone down the pit at nine on the Sunday night. It was a seven and a half hours shift and the accident happened at 6.30 the following morning. This is one of the pits that would be referred to as right and proper when the investigation took place. I wonder whether an entry was made in the book about this boy being down at that time?
The facts only came out in the sworn evidence at the inquiry. I have another instance of a man being killed. It is only in these cases that we are able to get evidence of what has actually happened. It causes us to wonder whether these things are examined as closely as they should be. The manager gave evidence in this case. The report states:
 The overtime books of the mine had recently been examined by special inspectors, and they had told him that overtime in that pit was very satisfactory. He thought the jab would have been completed by about five or six o'clock. He considered this was an emergency.
What is the job? The job is in the morning shift on one day getting ready for the next day, although the shift could have been ended and further men brought in at the end of seven and a half hours. They carried on until six o'clock at night, when the fatal accident happened. The mine manager said in evidence, and he is backed up by the recent inquiry, that overtime is perfectly satisfactory and that he can carry on. The coroner when he heard the evidence made this remark:
 I am bound to say that it came as a shock to me to know that men are allowed to work underground at the coal face for 12 hours a day with only a break of half an hour. I am not a collier. I am in an office, and my staff; work from nine in the morning till six at night, with an interval of one and a half hours in the middle of the day, and they consider this very hard work.
You have an instance here of a colliery that is being complimented on its record regarding overtime, where, shortly after an inquiry is held about an accident, the manager hides himself behind that inquiry. It is only when we get cases like that that we can bring direct evidence to the Mines Inspector as to what has actually happened. When that examination was made would it not have suited everyone, if the Mines Act was to be fully observed, to have had a complete inquiry and to have given our side a chance of stating its case? I thought we had arrived at a time when the spirit of co-operation meant something. Surely the miners are an important body, and no one can say that they are an unreasonable body. All we want to do is to find out whether overtime is excessive, whether it is required, and whether or not amending legislation should be brought forward. Instead of that, time
and Government money are spent in a futile inquiry which cannot satisfy our side. So this afternoon we lodge our protest against this method of inquiry. We hope that the Minister will continue this investigation and take some other part of the country. I hope he will go to Scotland.

Mr. SLATER: Anywhere you like.

Mr. TINKER: I accept that challenge. When that inquiry is made at least our side ought to be represented. That is all we ask for. We make our case to-day on those grounds. We are not satisfied with the report from Lancashire. We protest, in the hope that the Secretary for Mines will pursue these inquiries, that he will take some other part of the country, that he will recognise that we have a voice in this matter, that we represent the men's interests, and that we are anxious that the thing shall be carried out properly. If he will do that, I can assure him that we shall be very glad indeed. If after the inquiry we are not able to prove our case, we shall accept the position. Until the Minister does that we shall remain heartily dissatisfied with what has happened and cannot agree to it.

Lord BALNIEL: I would refer to only one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr.Tinker), and that is the point about working in deep and hot mines. It is not the first time that the hon. Member has raised the point, but I think that on this occasion, as previously, he has been guilty of some exaggeration. Admittedly it is an extremely difficult question; admittedly the pit is very hot, but, when the hon. Gentleman talks about slave conditions, and a "Hell Pit," he is really overstepping the mark. If that were not so, I cannot help feeling that the management would have received complaints from the workpeople. No complaints have been received. If the facts were as has been stated and the conditions as bad as the hon. Member said, there would have been complaints quite rightly, and many of them. It is not a question of the depth of a mine or the temperature of a mine that matters. Hon. Members opposite know that the important thing from the point of view of the comfort of those working under
ground is not either of those things, but is the difference between the wet bulb and the dry bulb temperature readings. I can show hon. Members who disagree with me a mine of only 1,500 feet depth, where the wet bulb temperature is 80 and the dry bulb 82, where the difference is the very small and much too small difference of only 2 degrees. In that mine the conditions are far more distressing than in the mine to which the hon. Member referred. In the mine to which he referred, during a visit which he paid to it the readings of the two bulbs were taken. The dry bulb was 100.5, admittedly high, and the wet bulb was 78, leaving a very large and satisfactory difference of 22.7, and it was this large and satisfactory difference which gave the hon. Member a sense of comparative comfort and coolness, and enabled him, when he was asked to guess the teperature, to understate it by 13 degrees.

Mr. TINKER: I do not follow that. Will the Noble Lord repeat it?

Lord BALNIEL: When the hon. Member visited the pit he and his friends were asked to estimate the temperature, and the careful management, who treat as pearls anything that falls from the lips of Members of Parliament, treasured his statement, and reported as a matter of interest that the hon. Member had under-estimated the dry bulb temperature by 13 degrees. That is a fact. The hon. Member agrees with it. What I mean is that the difference between the bulbs is a very important and very material factor, far more important that the actual depth of the pit or than the actual dry bulb temperature. The conditions are far more satisfactory in cases where there is a large difference between the two, whatever the temperature may be, than in cases where the difference as very small.

Mr.DAVID DAVIES: Does the noble Lord suggest that there was a difference of 22 degrees between the wet and dry bulb?

Lord BALNIEL: Yes, I gave the figures, 100.5 and 78, which is almost the ideal difference. I do not suggest that the mine referred to is not very hot. When the hon. Gentleman did it the honour of paying it a visit, he expressed himself as being entirely satisfied with
and favourably surprised at everything he saw. He complimented and has since in this House complimented the management on all that it has done to improve the conditions by bringing currents of air to the coal face, by modem ventilation, and by such additional methods as riding the men in, etc. I cannot help being surprised that the hon. Gentleman should wish to raise this point in the House of Commons. If he had suggestions to make why did he not go to the Minister and make them? If he had suggestion to make for the improvement of the mines, why did not he go to the management and say, "I believe that here I can help. If you took my advice in this you would do good." The management would be only too willing to receive the hon. Gentleman at any time. I only regret that he has not been. What can be done in this ease? The hon. Gentleman knows what.has been done. Infinite trouble and care have been taken and he has paid his tribute to it. I do not, think that anything more can be done considerably to reduce the temperature. Modern science does not know the way.

Mr. TINKER: I agree that they are doing all they can. The point of difference between us is that if there arises a point beyond which it is impossible for human endurance to work, what does the hon. Lord suggest should be done?

Lord BALNIEL: Certainly, that point has not been reached, but if it is a question like that, if human endurance cannot go on, the man obviously cannot work. On this point, we have had read part of a document by Professor Haldane which seemed to me to be extraordinarily interesting. Owing to the exigencies of Debate the document was not read fully. If it is as important a document as I imagine perhaps the hon. Gentleman can read it later in the Debate. It is such an important point that I think that would really please the committee, if it could be done. But the hon. Member must remember this: If the temperature cannot be reduced what is he going to do? Is he going to limit the depth at which a mine may be worked? That is useless because the depth is not the important factor. Is he going to limit the temperature at which work is permissible? If he is going to limit the depth the Arley seam will, of course, immediately close down. Above ground
there are 100 men working, and below ground 560 men, so that if you close down the Arley seam you put straight out of work some 650 men, who would far rather work there than go on the dole.
The Arley seam in this mine, as the hon. Member knows, is one of the great seams of the district. The Arley seam carries Parsonage. The hon. Member knows enough to understand that Parsonage is not going to work if the Arley is closed down. Does he think that the Haigh Yard is enough to carry Parsonage? If you close this lower seam you will close down the whole pit and some 1,140 men will ultimately be thrown out of work. I do not think that is worth it. It is not a derelict pit, but a pit with a great future which is developing every day and reaching new coal. It is a pit which will last a great deal longer than the lifetime of any hon. Gentleman in this Committee. It is a great pit which gives employment to a large district which the hon. Gentleman represents, and I do not think he is doing his constituents justice or good service by bringing these things forward in this way. I hope that in future he will be so kind as to bring these things to the attention of the management or to the Minister, both of whom, if I may say so without offence, are more competent to deal with them than hon. Members in the House.

Miss WARD: I should like to congratulate the Minister on the admirable survey which he has given us of the coal industry in this country. I believe that supporters of the National Government, as well as some others, feel that we are through the worst period of our depression and that our great coal industry will now be on the up-grade rather than on the down-grade. As a. Member of the North-East Coast, I think that I may best serve the interests of the Committee if I relate what I believe to be the real merits of the trade agreements. It is always difficult, in a, Debate of this kind when so many factors confuse the issue, to pick out within the reasonable confines of a Parliamentary speech one or two special and specific points. I think that each of us would like to ask questions in relation to the new policy of trade agreements, and to ascertain, when there has been a detailed
analysis of a district which has or ought to have benefited as the result of the negotiations, what the actual benefit has been.
I want to relate the trade agreements as negotiated with the Scandinavian countries to the district which I have the honour to represent, in respect of three points. The first point is in relation to quantity. I think that hon. Gentelemen above the Gangway will agree that, if we are to benefit the coal industry from the point of view of the miners, as well as from the point of view of the industry and the nation, quantity does enter in the picture. The chief negotiations for trade agreements have been with the Scandinavian and Baltic countries. Taking the first six months of appropriate years, the amount of coal which we exported from the North-East Coast to these countries in 1931 amounted to 847,000 tons. In 1932 it rose to 1,124,000 tons; in 1933 to 1,514,000; in 1934 to 1,900,000 tons. The later is an estimated figure which has not yet been confirmed by figures issued by the Mines Department. Those figures are an indication that quantity has benefited, at any rate in one specific district.
The second point to which I should like to draw attention is with regard to stabilised prices. It is no use selling millions of tons of coal if we do not sell them at an economic price. One of the great difficulties over the past few years in the coal industry of this country is that, owing to the action of other countries, to the economic world position, and to the world trade depression, the three greatest exporting countries have been engaged upon a ruthless price-cutting war. I would say to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that it is as essential in the interests of miners' wages as it is in the interests of the coal industry as a whole that we should have stabilised prices. The advantage of trade agreements is that if we have to export an ascertained amount of coal to a given country at a stabilised price we cut out ruthless competition between one country and another. I think it would be wise for a moment to take stock of the general situation with regard to Polish competition. I do not want to be drawn into any controversial issue, but I think that the history of the strides that Poland
has made as an exporting country of coal has dated from the time when she was assisted by the long drawn-out coal dispute in this country in 1926 to establish herself as an exporting country of first class predominance. During that long period of stoppage in this country, lasting very nearly nine months, Poland was able to place in her pits first-class up-to-date machinery, and she was able to establish contracts with markets which had always been solely the markets of Great Britain. It has taken us very nearly eight years to re-establish our position in those markets. I feel rather strongly that we are indeed indebted to the Minister of Mines and to the policy of the National Government in negotiating trade agreements, that we have at last been able to get back and to reestablish ourselves in relation to coal in those places where Poland had made tremendous inroads on our trade.
The third matter I want to mention is the establishment of international agreements. In his admirable survey the Minister of Mines pointed out that it would be very advisable for the three great exporting countries to sit down and discuss the allocation of world markets. I entirely agree. One of the difficulties has been that until this moment there has been no basis of general allocation, and one of the favourable results of the trade agreements is that we have a basis on which to work in relation to the markets which may ultimately be regarded as the markets of Great Britain. I know that, in taking this line and whole-heartedly supporting trade agreements, I lay myself open to criticism from the districts which have not yet benefited from the commercial negotiations. I would, however, like to point this out to the representatives of those districts which have not yet found any benefit from these agreements. It is impossible to enter upon revolutionary changes in policy so far as coal is concerned—I think that that is the right way of regarding the trade agreements—real revolutionary changes in the policy of selling coal, of finding markets and of international agreements which do away with ruthless price-cutting, without in due course finding that other districts which have not, up to date, been as fortunate as the North-East Coast will receive benefit.
Generally speaking, the industrial districts are still supporting the National
Government, though the general policy of the Government in altering our fiscal system has not yet brought to those districts the benefits which have accrued to what we may term the home districts. we cannot expect that any tremendous revolutionary change of policy throughout the country in all branches of trade will bring benefit to every part of the country at the same time. I think, therefore, I am right in submitting that when we look at the detailed analysis of the benefits of each of the agreements as between district and country, we can hope that in future, when we have been able to enter into agreements with such countries as Italy and France and the other countries which are negotiating with us, the whole of the coal trade and the whole of Great Britain will have the same benefits as we have had on the North-East Coast.
There is another point which I should like to make in regard to wages. I hope that I have carried with me hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the questions of price and quantity of exports. I know how very low wages are in Northumberland and Durham, but surely the best way to help the miners in the individual collieries in which they work is to make for prosperity in the coal trade as a whole. There is no other industry that benefits more from wages agreements between owners and workers if there is a restoration of prosperity. We know perfectly well, if there is real prosperity in the coal exporting districts, that, by virtue of the agreements on wages between the owners and miners, the miners obtain their fair share in better wages. I know that a point may be raised by some of my hon. Friends in regard to the fact that an enormous debt is accruing against the miners on their monthly ascertainment forms.
When for the first time since the present form of agreement was entered into in 1921 in Northumberland the monthly ascertainments have shown that it was possible to pay an increase over the 40 per cent. which is paid on the basic wage under the terms of the agreement—I feel that I ought to say this because I fight the coalowners as well as the miners' leaders when I think it necessary, and where I think the owners do a good turn they are as much entitled to credit as when the miners' leaders do one—when for the first time the coal trade showed a
profit, the owners might, under the terms of their agreement, have reasonably said, "We are going to use this additional profit in order to wipe off some of the debt which has accumulated against the owners." The Northumberland owners, however, divided that additional profit equally between the men and the owners. The point I want particularly to emphasise is that, so far as the coal trade is concerned, we are all in it more than people engaged in any other industry, because any profits which are obtained in the iron and steel industry, or in shipbuilding or ship-repairing, or in engineering, must be the basis of negotiations between the men's side and the employers' side before there can be an increase of wages.
I have never been able to understand, unless one goes back to very old history when a real attempt was made to force nationalisation on the country, why the miners' leaders should make it their business to prevent prosperity returning to the industry. I do not want to be drawn into a controversial issue, or I might refer to what a leader of the Miners' Federation, the late Mr. A. J. Cook, said in "The Miner's Next step," but that policy certainly had an unsettling effect on the industry. I believe that the miners' leaders are now more moderate, and that with the policy initiated by the National Government in entering into these trade agreements a new spirit has come over the industry. If the National Government, the coal-owners and the Miners' Federation will work together for the restoration of the prosperity of the industry, it will be a real benefit to the miners and to the nation, and will give a reasonable profit to those who have their capital in the industry. That, I believe, is the result at which we ought to aim, and I feel it will be the result of the policy so admirably expounded by the Minister of Mines this afternoon.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The hon. Lady who has just sat down, if she had been a miner's daughter or a miner's wife, would have known a little more about the difficulties of the industry than she showed in her speech. I am not surprised that she should congratulate the Minister of Mines on what she described as his admirable speech in
introducing this Debate. There is no reason why she should not congratulate him, for he congratulated himself and seemed to be very pleased with the progress made. He compared the conditions to-day with those of a, few years ago all to the advantage of himself and the Department over which he presides. I should like to put this to the Minister of Mines. The Miners' Federation is meeting this week at Edinburgh. If it had been a meeting of the colliery owners or managers, or of the Mining Association generally, there would have been no hesitation on the part of the Minister of Mines in attending that meeting and delivering a speech. Is there any reason why he should not attend the Miners' Federation Conference?

Mr. E. BROWN: If the Miners' Federation will give me an invitation, I shall be delighted to go.

Mr. GRAHAM: Did the colliery managers invite the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BROWN: They did. I was invited to Buxton last week. I will accept any invitation where I think I can render a service to the industry. If the Miners' Federation give me an invitation I will gladly accept it.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have noticed the reports of the statements of the Minister. It appears he was invited as a friend. If he came to the federation, we should not look on him as a friend.

Mr. BROWN: Nevertheless, I will go.

Mr. GRAHAM: Why not ask them to invite the right hon. Gentleman and see if they refuse? The unfortunate feature of all these discussions on the mining Vote where miners' questions are raised is the assumption generally held by Members on the other side of the House, mostly Tories, that 100 per cent. of the managers and 100 per cent. of the employers are honest, religious individuals. If they are Scotsmen, they go to the Kirk twice on Sunday and, if they are members of other bodies in England, Methodists or Wesleyans, I suppose they have meetings during the week as well. It is assumed that they are honest, and it is assumed that we are dishonest. There is no question about that. If I
make a statement to the hon. Member, he will not accept it as true, but he will take the word of the employers, and that runs through every Department in this House. It is nearly four years ago that I was one of a deputation that met at the hon. Member's Department. He was not the Minister then, but we saw Mr. Shinwell. We raised the question of overtime and Sunday work. We were told that we had to wait until a certain decision in a certain court in Scotland had been overruled. If it were not overruled, there was an assumed promise that a Bill would be introduced to deal with the question of overtime and breaches of the Mines Act. There is no suggestion of that being carried out although it is four years since that meeting was held.
I would prefer to be in a position to congratulate the Minister. I do not blame him, and nobody on our side blames him, for the evil condition in which the mining industry finds itself to-day, whether from the point of view of employment, wages, or working conditions. It is all very well for those who have never seen the miners' places or done any work in the mines to get up and make more or less academic speeches on the conditions in which they are supposed to be living and working. The hard fact is that during the last 10 years there has been a very considerable revolution in the mining industry to the advantage of the country and to the detriment of the miner. The hon. Gentleman was giving figures dealing with aspects of the subject that he referred to in his speech. He did not tell us the difference between the output by manual labour and by machine labour during the last 10 years. There is no industry in this country, I believe, where more inroads have been made by scientists. The hon. Gentleman gave some figures. I will give some too. In 1921 the output from British coalfields produced by machine—the machine-cut coal—was 23,039,705 tons; in 1932, the last year for which we have any return, the machine-cut coal production was 80,285,631 tons. That is an increase of 57,245,926 tons or fully 248 per cent. That is for the whole country, but I have the figures here for each of the districts, and there are some of them, giving the last 11 years, where the production has increased by over 800 per cent. I want to ask the Minister and
his Department what they are thinking about in regard to this particular change that has been brought about and is being intensified, so far as is humanly possible, in the various districts.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) referred to the very friendly relations between employers and men in Durham and Northumberland and the good way the employers treated the men. That is the poorest paid area in Britain, and the increase in machine-cut coal is 535 per cent. There has been a corresponding reduction in the number of persons employed. Not 500 per cent. certainly, but a very considerable reduction in the number of persons in each of these counties. There has not been a single penny put on the men's wages. If conditions go on as they are to-day, we shall very soon have no miners left. It will be an ordinary labourer's job, following the machine; the skilled work of the miner is largely disappearing. I can carry my memory back over a fairly long period now in the mining industry—over 50 years—to a time when there was no regulation of output, wages or hours. We worked from daylight to dark, or rather we were always in the dark, starting about four in the morning and working until five or six in the afternoon. Conditions were then considered to be bad, and we imagined in those days that, if we could get the hours reduced to eight, the conditions would be heavenly. We had them reduced to seven and a-half, and, if I were called to go back to work, I would rather work under the conditions of 50 years ago than those of to-day. The Department boasts that it has reduced the accidents. As a matter of fact it has increased the means by which accidents can happen. Then there was no electric machinery and no coal-cutting machinery. There have been various other devices introduced in the last few years in the collieries to which I am mainly referring by which accidents are increasing and likely to increase. One of the grievances is that we are the only industry where the men have to pay for their light. The wages agreement is not so good as my hon. Friend imagines it to be. It is very good as far as the employer is concerned, but not so good for the members of the mining occupation in the various districts that compose that great coalfield.
The Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) rather twitted the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for exaggerating a point that he made in regard to the temperature of the deep pits. It would be worth the while of those interested in mining affairs to look at the Samuel Commission Report, where they will find a table showing the depth of the various pits and the amount of coal produced from them. There are two things that are absolutely essential if you wish to give anything like satisfaction to the miner. There should be a rigid fixed working day, a maximum beyond which he should not be asked to go, and a shorter working day for the men employed in deep mines. No, matter what the Noble Lord may say, there is a difference between 102° and 78°. He put his case in a very gentlemanly way, as we should expect from one who has some knowledge of mining conditions. If a man is working under abnormal conditions in my own county, and they are working wet or the ventilation is bad, the manager generally agrees to allow anything from 6d. to a 1s. a day additional. That is not the way to pay men who are working in conditions such as I am suggesting. When the temperature reaches a certain point the working time should be reduced. I should say that a day of five or six hours in the mines referred to in the Samuel Commission Report is quite long enough. It would be worth while the Department considering that aspect of the matter and trying to come to some arrangement with the employers, and with the miners as well, with a view to reaching an understanding for a reduction of working time in these pits rather than to pay 6d. or a 1s. more.
May I say a few words with regard to the overtime question. If you put on 20 theoretical inspectors, it will not convince me that there are not breaches of the Mines Act, not committed by the managers of their own free will, but because they are very often compelled to do it or lose their job. The manager has to compete with men who are looking for his job, working under him in the same pit, and, if he is to keep his job, he has to do what the employers tell him. The employer in many cases nowadays knows absolutely nothing about the mine. He is the chairman of a big joint stock company, and he depends upon the management. He tells the manager what the
cost is to be, and the manager has to cut his cloth according to his purse. If the Department would consider the situation of the management from that standpoint, it would lead to an improvement greater than any that was in his mind when he was congratulating himself on the advantages that had resulted from the last year's working of the Department. In some of the pits our men are working on Sundays drawing coal. I believe there are some decent men among the managers and the owners. There are good and bad. I believe there are something like 5 per cent. who should be in prison. A black sheep is always seen much more easily than a white.
There is no doubt in the minds of those who advise the miners in my county that there is a continued deliberate breach of the Mines Act so far as working time is concerned. If there were a general inquiry, as there ought to be, and as we expected there would have been, the Ministry should make their inquiry in Scotland. Four out of every five tons of coal in Lanark are produced by machinery. I am not saying that the managers are breaking the law deliberately. They are being forced because of conditions over which to a large extent they have no control, but they ought to be compelled to observe the law. The time has come when they should get rid of the emergency Section. That Section means that men can be working over the time in every pit in the country. If you want to have anything like reasonable acceptance on the part of the miners of the policy that you are pursuing, you will have to treat them very differently so far as working time is concerned from the way they have been treated up to the present. My information is that even a question put in the House of Commons has, to a large extent, had the desired effect.
The Minister himself tells me that I have not sufficient facts. I see the men coming from the pits every Sunday afternoon, men who I know are working at the coal face. They come to me. I do not say they all tell an absolutely accurate story, but we get no larger percentage of dishonest men than there are among the managers. The Ministry is not to take the words of the managers as
being absolutely true any more than the word of the men. If you make an inquiry in the three principal districts—Scotland, Yorkshire and Nottingham—you will find very good reason to justify the complaints that we have made and to induce the Minister to abandon the complacent attitude that he has adopted with regard to this report. This is not a satisfactory report. It is not correct to say that these inspectors gave an absolutely fair report, but there is not a single inspector who does not draw attention to the fact that there is an unreasonable amount of overtime being worked.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take to heart the criticisms that are being made even by those who have not the academic knowledge of the industry that a number of us have who have learnt by bitter experience what the conditions really are and can understand quite clearly what the men mean when they tell us the stories that they do with regard to the conditions obtaining. I have been asked to intimate to the Minister in regard to his statement as to the position of the export trade that we propose to raise that question on the Board of Trade Vote.
I hope the Minister will not pay too much attention to the kindly words that will be spoken from every other part of the House than this about his report, but will pay some little regard to our statements and will endeavour to satisfy us, if it be at all possible, on this question of working time. Nothing fires the imagination of the miner more than a shorter working day, and there is nothing on which he feels more bitter than the Attempts that are continually being made to compel him to work longer than his working time. If you can find ways and means of settling that difficulty, the question of wages will be dealt with in the usual way. We believe in peace and war. We prefer peace, but we are not afraid to face war. Once you get stability in the industry, wage conditions will have to be dealt with. I listened yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture and the Under-Secretary for Scotland advocating a ca'canny policy in regard to agriculture. Ten years ago I advocated a ca'canny policy with regard to mining, and was denounced all over the country for it. I am a miner and not a statesman, but the statesmen are now adopting the point of
view that I held, then. I believe in regulating output. I believe in the output and work of men engaged in agriculture or any other industry being regulated to such an extent as to make it possible for the men to receive a reasonable wage in order to enable them to live a decent and comfortable life. That is the only thing worth living and fighting for 'as far as we Members on the Committee are concerned. We are anxious that the Mines Department should bend itself to the task of trying to bring improvement into the mining industry, whether they are opposed by employers or by anybody else. We ask them to set their faces determinedly against opposition. After this long period of depression from which the miners have suffered—more than 10 years—the time has come when the Mines Department at least should make certain that the working time should be reduced to a, considerable extent.

Mr.SLATER: I do not think that it is necessary for me to deal with all the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), as I think that the Secretary for Mines is able to deal with them quite satisfactorily. There are, however, two or three points to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member referred to the conditions in regard to machine mining being worse than was the case 10 years ago, and pointed out that from four to five hours per day were a sufficiently long period during which to work in pits that are very hot. But there is another side of the question, the economic side, which cannot possibly be ignored. If we had riot machine mining in this country to-day, I believe that we should have not more than half the number of men working in the pits. The machine mining has made it possible for us to compete with the alternative forms of power, light and heat in industry. It is the old story, and I think that hon. Members above the Gangway are not doing the men that they represent any good by bringing forward such criticisms.
As to the question of overtime, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is not present because he mentioned me in his speech when I said, "Hear, hear" in commendation of the inquiry. I read the report carefully and submitted it to my management. In the
collieries of which I am chairman, as much as 99 per cent. of our coal is machine got. The question of overtime, which I believe has been brought forward sincerely by hon. Members, is one in regard to which both the management and the owners recognise that a man who has spent eight hours down the pit has worked sufficiently long. We do not want men to go on working after that time, but unforeseen conditions often arise at the end of a shift with regard to cutting and clearing which make this necessary. If all the cases were investigated honestly and fairly, I am sure that it would be found that it is in exceptional cases when the work of hundreds of men may be involved in the continuance of production in the next or following shifts. These things work in rhythm. We cut one shift clearing the next shift, move machinery and supports for the next shift. The whole thing is done with rhythm much like a factory above ground; in fact, the modern mine is full of machinery to-day and has to work with a rhythm. The only time when the manager will ask men to continue working is perhaps when there is a "cut out" of power, or an accident has occurred and it is a question of making preparations for the next shift. This statement will stand the test of examination, and I can assure hon. Members that the managements will be prepared to have an examination. I do not mix up the question of mining on Sunday with overtime. I should have thought that Scotland would be the last place in which one had to work on Sunday.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The employers are the same all over.

Mr. SLATER: Perhaps the hon. Member is right. We are not a bad lot, are we? At any rate, this is introducing a question which is not relative at all.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I presume that when talking about overtime the hon. Member is referring to his own collieries. He will not suggest that his knowledge extends to South Wales where we can show that overtime is being worked, and where we see men going home from work outside the regular hours.

Mr. SLATER: Obviously that depends upon facts which must be proved, but I accept the statement of the hon. Member. I am speaking generally on the
question of the necessity of overtime being worked when emergency arises. If I thought that this practice was being abused I should be one of the first to condemn it. Coming back after six months away from the coal trade, and having bad plenty of time in which to think over the course of events, I think that the National Government have in a very short time adopted some really concrete, constructive proposals with regard to the coal industry. The contribution of the Government in tightening up the defects of the Act of 1930 is important, but I am sure that even the Minister recognises that the giving of greater flexibility to export brings other difficulties. I consider that I am doing my duty as an hon. Member of this House by pointing out the fact that, if we artificially direct trade to certain exporting districts by means of our Trade Agreements and then sub-divide the standard tonnage allotted to the various collieries and districts throughout the country, it may well be that the exporting districts which have received the artificially directed trade may have to suffer some diminution in the standard tonnage for home disposal. In fact, it creates another difficulty. His Majesty's Government have seen fit, quite rightly, to give the lie to the question of putting artificial hindrance on coal being available for our foreign customers, which, in these hard times, we certainly cannot possibly countenance.
They have also definitely decided to deal with the inter-district competition with regard to prices. I attach far more importance to that matter than I do to the first point. The task undertaken by a very resolute Secretary for Mines—and I commend him upon his resolution in dealing with the matter—is one with which I do not think hon. Members will be disappointed, even though they do not see very material alterations at once. Think of the enormity of the task of fixing inter-district prices. You have producing and consuming districts, and you have consuming and non-producing areas. The position arises in which every producing district operates against another producing district for the trade in the non-producing consuming district. I am in Great Britain. I produce my coal within the ambit of this island of ours and I claim to have an equal right to
market my coal anywhere inside this country. Take the example of London. The Midlands, Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and even Ayrshire, Troon, and South Wales may all be interested in this consuming area, which is a non-producing area. There is the question of the relativity of pit prices and of transport charges. If the position finally is to be that there shall be strict fairness in the question of apportioning equal opportimities to all districts to compete, you have not only to go into the question of the thermal efficiency of coal at the point of consumption but at the point of production. Though it is so great a task—and I do not think that hon. Members will be disappointed if we' do not see great steps being taken as a result of giving this equality—I feel that it has been well worth attempting.
There are two or three things which I have been studying for a long time. I would seek the attention of the Minister to such a phrase as "a producing district." In Scotland they have home prices. In the Glasgow area, in Ayrshire or Lanarkshire they have prices for "washed smalls" which are perhaps in that area 15s. or 16s. per ton. They decide to become interested in the requirements, say, of Liverpool Corporation or a corporation on the Bristol Channel. You then see the Act used by the producers in Scotland to cut the prices which they get in their o wn district so that they can go into another district and rob it of its legitimate trade. The quickest way to deal with this is by the Central Executive. The first thing I would ask the Secretary for Mines to impress upon the Central Executive would be to stop that sort of thing. If they quote a price which is less than that which the local producing county are asking for home contracts, the matter should go before the Central Executive and the price should be adjusted to what is considered to be a fair price.
The second important point with which I want to deal is the loss of aggregate proceeds which the industry is generally suffering by the frightful inter-district conpetition. I have been taking great pains to try to assess the extent of it. It is no exaggeration to say that to-day if there were a really efficient central executive adjusting prices with fairness and equality as between all producing and consuming districts you could add,
with a stroke of the pen, £5,000,000 to the aggregate proceeds of the coal industry. Think what that means in wages. It does not mean more men, but it means a great deal so far as wages are concerned, and it cannot be tolerated any longer without a great deal of remonstration not only from hon. Members above the Gangway but also from hon. Members who are supporters of the Government. I am sure that the Secretary for Mines has this point in mind.
There is another matter which, after a reflection of several years, I am convinced must be grappled with at once. It will not surprise some hon. Members, although it may surprise others, to know that ever since the coal trade has existed, that is ever since commercial practices and usages came into operation, it has been the policy to sell small coal at a dead loss. The whole question of the coal trade lies in the price of smalls. If we could only get an advance of 1s. 6d. or 2s. per ton in the price of smalls, it would make all the difference not only to the financial results of the industry but also to the volume of consumption. In selling smalls at a loss we have always extorted from domestic consumers prices for large coal which we never should have asked, and we have thus been gradually making them go to electricity and gas; we have, in fact, been helping our competitors. What we really want to do is to reduce the price of large coal. It is becoming very difficult to find markets for large coal, and we have often had to break up large coal in order to create smalls. This is a very important matter.
I have looked at the people who take smalls, and have ascertained what would be the effect of an advance of 20 per cent. in the price. Take, for example, the Sheffield electricity works. The average cost price in 1933 for coal was 0.19d. per k.w.h. The average price to consumers was 1.0d. and the profit £144,452 on an output of 228,000,000 k.w.h., that is, 0.15d. per k.w.h. The average total cost, therefore, was 0.85d. per k.w.h. and the fuel cost 22.4 per cent. of this figure. If, therefore, the fuel cost was increased by 20 per cent. the total cast per k.w.h. would be raised by only 4 per cent. In other words, although it may sound extraordinary to suggest an advance of 20 per cent. in the price of smalls, it is nothing for those people who have a
monopoly in their areas and who have been using that monopoly to create a competitor to the use of coal. This cannot be tolerated; there must be a central executive authority who will grapple with the situation. We have not finished with the mining areas when we have blotted them out so far as their power to exist is concerned, because they will still exist and unemployment pay will have to be given in these particular areas. I suggest that there is no problem more important, to which the Secretary for Mines can apply all his energy, and every possible assistance will be given by everybody, than this question of raising prices to an economic level and enabling this section of the industry to increase its competitive possibilities as against electricity, gas and oil.
There is another question which I have been studying with great care, and that is the question of the sea-borne coal to the south of England. I accept the argument with regard to the right of these producers to sell their coal anywhere in Britain. No one will deny them that right, but when I see what is going on in regard to distribution, and what they are obtaining, I wonder why the Northumberland people should continue to do so. I am not making any criticism or attack on Northumberland. My remarks are intended to be constructive. Let me give some figures of what is happening in regard to this sea-borne coal. Coals are being shipped costing between 13s. 6d. and 14s. per ton, free on board at Blyth. They cost about 2s. 6d. to 4s. to send to varying points around the South Coast. They are there screened, and there is a certain amount of degradation, that is, smalls are about 20 per cent. These smalls ca-n be sold in the south of England at a loss of about 2s. per ton on the average, and this Northumberland coal, graded in the truck, is being put at the disposal of retail distributors in the south at 18s. or Li per ton. I would not mind that, but I have gone around the South Coast and I find that the price which is being charged for this coal—the average price for this coal throughout the whole of the south of England—is no less than 44s. per ton, a difference of 24s. gross profit, and yet this district is paying the lowest wages in England and cannot make any profits. It does not add a single ton to the aggregate consumption of Great
Britain, but it brings down the aggregate proceeds of the entire industry and the wages and profits in the industry.
This cannot be tolerated; it must be met with a firm hand. It would pay the Midland districts of England to go to Northumberland and pay them 1s. per ton to go out of production. The position is as absurd as that. Northumberland would, of course, say that they want to produce, but I say that the Northumberland producers would make far more money for themselves and for their miners if they would work in co-operation with other districts on this question. They have put coal at selective points, lower coastal freights as against higher railway rates have brought it about, but there is no question that this matter of selling is of paramount importance to the trade, and I hope that the Secretary of Mines and his Department will apply themselves to this question in the coming years.
I have given the Secretary for Mines notice that I intend to bring forward another matter which happens to be somewhat local, and I hope hon. Members will pardon me for mentioning it, but I cannot possibly allow it, although I may be selfishly interested in it, to be left unsaid. I refer to the case tried quite recently of Wolstanton versus the North Staffordshire Executive Board. This was a colliery bought by pottery manufacturers and tile manufacturers for the purpose of supplying themselves with coal. It was an ironstone mine, a few years ago, but now works a seam called the Great-Row seam. This is a highly suitable coal for the pottery industry. They have made great progress because they are working in what is a secured natural and local geographical area for distribution. They are not tackling outside trade, which means so much to employment; they are just doing their own trade. They have repeatedly applied and have received advances in their standard tonnage, but the last application of this company for an advance on their standard tonnage was contested by the North Staffordshire Executive Board. The question was the interpretation of Section 41 of the Act which deals with special circumstances. It was contended by the applicants that a special demand for a special coal was a special circumstance, bringing about the need for an increase in their standard tonnage. In other
words, they said that they had customers who were sharedolders in their company who would buy their coals, and that this constituted a special demand and special circumstances why the arbitrator should grant them an increase. It was refused, and the case was carried to the High Court, where Mr. Justice Crossman decided that a special demand did exist, that there were special circumstances, and that a grant of a further 50,000 tons to their standard tonnage should be granted to this company.
This may be a very significant thing for other districts if it is left as it is. I am told that there is no appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Crossman, but if something is not done now, it will mean that railway companies, public utility companies, groups of manufacturers who are now buying from independent producers, can purchase collieries and because of special demand work them at 100 per cent. efficiency, while independent producers lose their trade. As there is no more than an aggregate amount of tonnage throughout the country, they will put the whole of the independent non-consuming collieries into bankruptcy. We cannot possibly allow such circumstances like that to continue. It threatens the whole basis of the Act of 1930. To enforce restrictions on colliery owners is bad enough, but to single out collieries for special treatment, at the expense of others, is making fish of one and fowl of another.
I hope that the Minister will riot give me a negative reply and say that nothing can be done. I hope that something will be done. In my district 13 producers as against four, have sent a letter to the Secretary for Mines putting our case before him. We say that a precedent has already been created, that other people are organising on these lines— shareholders of companies and others—and that, if it goes on, the whole business is going to be thrown into chaos. We in North Staffordshire do not play second fiddle to the owners in any other district as regards our association with our men We are on the friendliest terms with the men; they work for us in a spirit of loyalty and we have done there what has not been done yet anywhere else. We have a new three years agreement including an increase of the minimum wage, and increases in the wages of boys.
[Laughter.] It is nothing to laugh at; it is something for which I think Members of the Labour party ought to commend us. I ask hon. Members to consider the effect of what I have indicated upon a district like that, a district which is in connection not only with the pottery industry but with the coal industry. An appeal has been signed in that district and posted in every works asking that every man in the district should join his union. That is a commendable thing, and I say that in a district like that or in connection with a business like that, we ought not to allow any "fish and fowl" policy to operate in the administration of the Act. Therefore, I ask the Minister and the Committee to support me in saying that this policy ought not to be allowed to persist.

Mr. T. SMITH: So many hon. Members wish to speak on this Vote that I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) in the remarks which he has made except, to say that the major portion of his speech sounded familiar to me. I remember in 1930 when the late Mr. William Graham was telling the House of Commons that the pit-head price of coal ought to be increased by ls. 6d. a ton, many hon. Members who now sit opposite jeered at him for suggesting any such thing or attempting to bring it about. I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne would find on these benches a good deal of support for his policy of getting an increased price for small coal and various other classes of coal. In our opinion the pit-head price of coal in this country is too low and the price of household coal to the consumer is far too high. One has only to recall the fact that we are supplying coal to places abroad from this country, f.o.b. at the ports of Goole and Hull, consigned as far away as Iceland and the Scandinavian countries, at shillings per ton cheaper than the price at which same coal can be bought two miles from where it is produced. There can be no doubt that there is something wrong. I would ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is preventing a better price being got for the small coal? The hon. Member happens to have interests in certain collieries. I hope he will try to induce his fellow coal-owners to pursue the policy which he has out-. lined. If he does so, we shall support him through thick and thin.
When the hon. Member talked about overtime, however, some of us' were inclined to disagree with what he said. The matter is not quite as simple as he indicated. I hope the Secretary for Mines will believe me when I say that overtime in the pits is not confined to Lancashire or Scotland. I am. not saying that it is general in all the coalfields, but I know that there is more overtime in Yorkshire and in other counties than there ought to be, and I want to get at the point of view of the Mines Department upon this question. We have to differentiate between emergency work and overtime. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at hon. Members on this side for our attitude towards this question. Our attitude can be explained in a few sentences. If there is any danger there is no limit to the hours that a miner will work. If a man is buried under a, fall, the miners would stop all night and forget all about the Act. If there was a heading which required to be got through for ventilation and safety purposes the men would willingly do the work. But what we say is that a great deal of work is being defined as emergency work which is really ordinary overtime.
I take an example from my own area. We have been working machine mining there for 16 years, and what happens in practice is that the deputy comes along at a quarter to one and says, "I want this face cleared before you go." Do the Mines Department regard as emergency work the clearing of a conveyor face in the every-day working of the mine? We ought to have a specific answer to that specific point. Only six days before I returned to the House of Commons, I had charge of a dispute at a very big pit on this particular point, and we made it possible for that face to be cleared without a single man working longer than the Act required. We did it by having relays of men. I would like a definite answer as to the Department's view.
There is a way of stopping this overtime in machine mining, and that is to make the owners pay for it. I notice that the hon. Member for Eastbourne smiles at that suggestion. We have in Yorkshire an agreement that overtime during the week shall be at the rate of time and one-third, and at the week-end at the rate of time and a half. Nobody can say that that is extravagant, but
where we have been able to get the whole of the colliery managers to insist on the payment of time and one-third overtime has quickly ceased. But the Secretary for Mines will believe me when I say that we see men coming home from the pit at half-past three or four o'clock when we know that in the ordinary course they should have been out at 2 o'clock and these men are not in the habit of telling lies to us. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will pursue his inquiries into this matter and will make the attitude of his Department clear on this matter of clearing a face where conveyor working is taking place.
A number of questions have been put to the Secretary for Mines with regard to the proposed regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors. The hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question of mine, stated that he had met the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and that they and he were considering certain suggestions. I want the Minister to be perfectly frank with the Committee and to state what is the obstacle in the way of progress in this matter. The Minister announced on 19th December last year that he proposed to issue a regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground. We have now reached 17th July, but apparently no possibility of finality in this matter is yet in sight. Has the Minister finished his consultations with the executive of the Miners' Federation? I may say, frankly, that I know the point which is in dispute. Speaking from the opposite side of the House in December, 1929, I advocated the use of automatic gas detectors as distinct from safety lamps. I know something about the subject. I have seen them at work in the pits. All the time from 1929 to the present, there have been inquiries of all kinds with regard to one particular kind of automatic gas detector.
I want to make my position clear. I am not advocating a particular device but I believe that a detector in which the human element does not enter is better than the ordinary flame lamp because testing for gas with the ordinary flame lamp is not an exact science and I would challenge the inspectors of the Mines Department on that point. Inspectors have admitted that if three or four skilled men were separately examining for gas with flame safety lamps they would in
all probability arrive at slightly different percentages. In 1928 an order was made concerning the Ringrose automatic gas alarm. I want to put this question to the Minister. What is the objection to this device? Is it prejudice on the part of somebody in the Department? Is the device not efficient If any device was inefficient and I knew it was inefficient, I would not advocate it in any shape or form but this device has overcome nearly every obstacle put up against it. I challenge the Secretary for Mines to dispute that fact. It has been tested in the laboratory and in the pits. It has been subjected to a very thorough test and I would like to know what is the objection of the Department to it.
We were told in the last Debate that it is not the only device. I hope that it will not be the only one. The moment we get to the point of giving something like an opportunity to inventive men, these devices will spring up like mushrooms. I am very pleased to know that some hon. Members are interesting themselves in this problem. I notice a report in the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" that a number of. Members representing all parties took the trouble of going to the Staveley Coal and Iron Company's colliery to have a look at this device. I have seen the device both inside and outside the pits, and from the report in the newspaper it would appear that the hon. Members who showed so much interest in the welfare of the miners as to inspect it, were impressed by its efficiency. Therefore, we ought to be told what is the objection of the Department to it and also when we are likely to get finality with regard to these regulations. It is now July and we shall be rising in the course of three weeks. Apparently it will be November before we can hope for any finality. The Minister ought to take the Committee into his confidence in this matter.
I would also like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he is getting any complaints from the Humber ports about the shortage of coal for export. I am prepared to defend the 1930 Act anywhere but there are some pits in my constituency which supply coal to the Humber ports for export. and I have three or four letters which indicate clearly that there is difficulty about getting supplies of coal for export. I have talked the matter over with at least
one South Yorkshire coalowner and he admits that it is true. I think I know the reason. I think there is a demand for a particular kind of coal, but I think hon. Members will agree that this is a matter of public interest. The people who want to export this coal are dependent upon the coal being exported and they have a right to know from the Minister what is the exact position. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us what complaints he has had from Hull and district with regard to this matter, and will state whether he can clear up the matter satisfactorily.

Mr. CONANT: The Debate has covered an extraordinarily wide field, but that is not surprising when one considers the large number of interests with which my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned in dealing with the coal industry. The topic which interests me most is the progress which has been made in producing derivatives from coal. I believe that the future of the coal trade depends far more upon the development of new uses for coal than anything else. It is generally agreed that a large part of the depression in the coal trade is due to the loss of our export markets, and every effort ought to be made to win them back; but I think we cannot expect to regain them to any very large extent, and must look therefore to the home trade and to the replacing of foreign oil by coal for an expansion of employment in the coal trade. It seems to me, and I think most hon. Members will agree, that it is absolutely wrong in principle that we who have beneath us the best fuel in the world should have allowed our industries to develop through the use of foreign oil. When we remember that we became a great industrial country because we possessed this natural fuel beneath our soil it is all the more amazing that we have allowed this development in the use of oil fuel. One of the principal uses to which foreign oil is now put is the driving of motor cars. Not everybody appreciates that it is perfectly practicable at the present day to drive motor cars by British fuel—not only British petrol, but coal gas and other fuels. The Minister referred to the enriching of coal gas by the addition of creosote, which has made it possible for motor cars driven by coal gas to extend their radius very considerably. The running of motors on coal gas
is now a practical proposition for almost all commercial vehicles, and the only difficulty to be overcome is the prejudice against a new form of fuel. This is a direction in which the Government and the Minister can help very considerably. The development of motor transport driven by coal gas may provide a great field of employment.
In referring to employment in the coal trade one is inclined to get an entirely false picture of the situation if one compares the books of a colliery company, say, 15 years ago with the books to-day. One finds a very considerable decrease in the number of people employed by that colliery to-day, and if one is a Socialist one may have great satisfaction in gloating over the imminent collapse of the capitalist system. Such a comparison of figures presents an entirely false picture. The real comparison is between the number of people employed in producing fuel 15 years ago and the number of people employed in fuel production to-day. In the past the production of fuel was to a large extent represented by the production of coal. A certain number of people were engaged in producing gas and electricity, but employment was mainly found in bringing the coal from the coal face to the pithead. To-day, evolution has come about, and the coal is conveyed from the coal face to the pithead very largely, and to an increasing extent, by machinery. Employment is being created to an ever-increasing extent above ground, not necessarily in what we call the coal trade itself, but in the fuel-producing industries, such as gas and electricity, and in the engineering industry, which makes the machinery for converting coal into petrol, gas or electricity.
Although it is impossible to collect the actual figures, if one were to compare the volume of employment given by the production of fuel, say, 15 years ago with the figures to-day one would find, over that wide field, that on account of mechanisation employment has been considerably increased. Mechanisation has meant a smaller number of men employed underground in the dangerous, and perhaps unhealthy, and to some extent unpleasant, occupation of getting coal from the coal face to the pit head. Mechanisation has made it possible to adapt coal to an ever-increasing extent to new uses by which an increase in
employment will be created in the future. To-day we are still in the stage of transition. We still have a number of people who have lost employment in the actual production of coal, many of whom, unfortunately, will be most unlikely, owing to age and disability, to regain employment either in the coal trade or in the trades occupied with derivatives of coal. Perhaps that is inevitable, but we must remember that as there are developments in the newer uses of coal we shall create ever-increasing employment, and however much we may for the moment, regret the temporary dislocation which mechanisation has caused I believe that future generations will regard the mechanisation as having been inevitable, and will regard it as necessary and advisable that we should, as far as possible, cut short the transition stage. I believe that certain steps could be taken, though it may not be possible to refer to them now, which would assist these new developments and would have the effect of cutting short the transition stage from hand labour to machine labour, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do what he can to convince the Government of the necessity for action. Above all, I hope that in these matters we shall take a broad view and study the coal problem not as solely a coal problem but as concerned with the whole question of the fuel resources of the country.
6.23 p.m.

Mr.BATEY: rather enjoyed the speech of the Secretary for Mines to-day, because he seemed to be so extremely happy. It looked as though he had made himself believe that the Government's policy had been a good thing for the coal industry. He specially mentioned Durham, and indicated what the Government's policy had done for Durham. That is my excuse for speaking to-night. The last ascertainment issued in Durham is dated 3rd July and I want the Minister to know one or two of the things that it shows. According to that ascertainment there are now 102,667 men working, compared with 103,651 last month, a decrease of 984. There is nothing to be jubilant about in that. Then they go on to say:
 Compared with April, 1924, the highest point of employment, when there were 172,326 employed, the reduction is 69,559.
It states, further, that the deficit for the month is £136,481, bringing the total to
£15,027,318. The miners are owing more than £15,000,000 to the coalowners. The same ascertainment also says that the average wage for May was 7s. 9.8d. In the face of those figures how the Secretary for Mines can say that the Government's policy has been good for the coal industry in the County of Durham I cannot understand.
Coming to the question of overtime, I would direct the Minister's attention to the report of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the Northern District this year. I would note in passing that the inspector omitted to deal with the question of overtime. I am not complaining of the report, which I consider is an extremely good one, and I am prepared to compliment the inspector upon it, but in view of the complaints of the large amount of overtime, which are not confined to Lancashire or Scotland but also concern Durham, the Minister ought to instruct the inspectors to deal with the overtime question in their reports. There is one case in the report, on page 11, which I would bring to the Minister's notice. It deals with an explosion in which three men were killed, and says:
 The face was undercut by three machine men.
Then it gives their names:
 They commenced cutting at the dip end of the face about 1 p.m. on Saturday. The face was 110 yards long and the cut was normally completed within the shift, but on this occasion various mishaps to the haulage chain and sprocket delayed the work, and the cut had only just been completed when the explosion occurred at 11.30 p.m.
They had started work at one o'clock and the explosion occurred at 11.30.

Mr.MARTIN: Where was this?

Mr.BATEY: was not going to mention the name of the colliery, but I will as the hon. Member has asked for it. It was an explosion which occurred on 22nd April at Backworth (Eccles) Colliery, Northumberland.

Mr.MARTIN: That is Northumberland, not Durham.

Mr.BATEY: Oh yes, this report is not confined to Durham, but covers Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland.

Mr. MARTIN: I thought the hon. Member was dealing only with the County of Durham.

Mr.BATEY: I ask the Minister to see that this excessive overtime is ended. Nobody can justify a case in which men start at 1 o'clock on a. Saturday afternoon to undercut a face of coal and continue until 11.30. The strange thing is that there was no prosecution in that case. The argument which the Minister generally uses on the question of overtime is that the Act of 1908 provides for a certain amount of overtime to be worked. It does, but it is limited to 60 hours per year and not more than one hour per day. The men in this case ought to have finished at half-past eight, but they were working until half-past eleven, and then there was an explosion and three of them were killed, yet no attempt has been made to take into court either the manager or the agent of the colliery. One of the most effective ways of stopping overtime would be to bring some cases into court. This case ought certainly to have been taken to court, and it is difficult to understand why some steps were not taken against the agent or the manager.
The face that these men were cutting was 110 yards long. The manager might say that as the machine men had begun to cut the face of the coal, it was essential that the work should be finished, in order that the coal might be taken away next day. We can understand that argument, but there is no justification for faces of coal to be as long as 110 yards. A resolution was passed recently in Durham County saying that faces of coal should not be longer than 66 yards. Cases like the one which I have cited point to the need for preventing overtime and accidents and for coal faces being much shorter than 110 yards. The limit should be 66 yards so that, when machine men have begun to cut, there will be a reasonable chance of their being able to complete the cut during the shift.
There is a matter which has been mentioned on more than one occasion, in regard to the need for a National Wages Board. We are making no progress in that matter. The Ministry of Mines recently sent a letter to the Miners' Federation, and I am proposing to read that letter to the Secretary for Mines. The letter says:
 Dear Mr. Edwards, I have your letter of the 13th April, suggesting the appointment of a special committee."—
The federation had been asking for a special committee to go into the question of fixing national wages machinery. The letter goes on:
 No such committee is necessary to convince the Government of the desirability of national wages machinery in the mining industry. What is wanted is the co-operation of the coalowners or a practicable scheme for securing national machinery in spite of the opposition of the coalowners.
I draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the words:
 What is wanted is the co-operation of the coalowners.
The Secretary for Mines has had a long time in which to get the co-operation of the coalowners. The machinery is there. The board was established by the 1930 Act, but all that happens is that the coal-owners will not attend. I submit that the Secretary for Mines ought to take steps to compel the coalowners to attend the board, so that we might have this machinery. We cannot continue to go on as we have been going on, month after month and year after year. Nothing has been done. National machinery for the regulation of miners' wages is one of the urgent needs of the coal trade, and the Minister ought to use all the power he has to force the owners to come round a table, even if that means that he has to do it by the threat of legislation. I will leave it there.
When we were discussing the Order-in-Council and the agreement made recently between the coalowners and the Government, we learned that the machinery for quotas and for the establishment of minimum prices would be in the hands of a central council of the coalowners, and that the council would draft rules. When we debated the matter on a former occasion we did not get very much satisfaction as to whether those rules would be laid before the House. The Minister will have had time to go into the matter since then, and I ask him to tell us in his reply whether the rules that are drafted by the central council of coalowners will come before the House and whether we shall have a chance of debating them. There has been an urgent need for to-day's Debate. The pity is that we have no time to deal with many subjects that might be dealt with.
6.36 p.m.

Major HILLS: I rise to speak on the subject of the prevention of accidents in
mines. I have had the privilege of being one of a party to see an automatic gas detector in operation. Before I give the result of our visit I want to answer a question which was put from the Opposition as to whether we thought that the conditions of working in mines were very unpleasant. We went down a mine that belongs to the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, Limited. It is a very well-organised and ventilated mine. I have been down far worse mines. Of course it was hot. All mines over 1,000 feet are hot. What the effect of being down 4,000 feet in the ground is I cannot say. I have never been as deep down as that. I should not care to be a miner, because it must be very hot work, but I must say that, as far as the mine that we went down is concerned, I thought that everything was very well arranged. The lighting and ventilation were good, but on that I speak with diffidence, because some miners' representatives were with the deputation, and they can speak about that with far greater experience than I can.
We visited one of the Markham Collieries belonging to the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, Limited. The deputation comprised representatives of all parties, and of four different coalfields, in Nottinghamshire, Durham, Yorkshire, and Northumberland. I tried to make it rather larger, but Friday is a bad day, because Members are speaking in their constituencies and very large numbers of Members whom I tried to get to join the deputation had engagements which they could not break. An experiment was made. There were four Ringrose automatic gas alarms, and gas was put into them artificially. All the red lights burned at the proper interval after the gas had gone in. I do not lay great stress on that. The next experiment took place when we went down 600 yards to the pit of the mine and walked what seemed a very long distance along the mine. We got very hot in so doing. Then we came to the face, where the men were working with automatic firedamp alarms in operation. There we had the extraordinary experience of seeing gas allowed to come in and the lamps burning red. All the lamps were burning red, and not a single lamp was failing. Then, I am glad to say, the ventilation
was restored, and all the lamps burned white again.
I would ask the Committee to mark one thing about that experiment; it was not done by the makers of the automatic firedamp alarms but by the management of the Markham Colliery, who have installed the alarms for the purpose of increasing the safety of the men who work in the mine. It was not an experiment where everything had been made ready for the people who came to see the experiment, and it was an extremely impressive experience which, I think, none of us will ever forget. It was a most interesting and, I believe, hopeful experiment. I see from the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" of 12th July a statement that the Minister—
 will probably assure the deputation of the Miners' Federation that he sympathises with the present experiment and will enjoin the use of some automatic gas detectors as soon as it is proved that they are reliable in all circumstances.
I hope that that notice is true, and that the Secretary for Mines will make some move forward. I know that he is just as anxious as any hon. Member to put a stop to the terrible loss of life that takes place in the mines, but we who have pressed this matter upon him feel that there is some delay, and we should like to know the reason for it. Is it that the Ringrose automatic alarm is not reliable, or that there is no reliable instrument of any sort? If so, we should like to be told. As far as we could see, and as far as I could judge by reading the literature, the Ringrose alarm is an excellent contrivance, but if there is any fault, and if it fails to act as it ought, I should like to know. If it is efficient, this is a matter which stands outside and above all the questions that have been discussed this afternoon. I agree with most of those questions—as to the commercial side of coal-getting and the importance of the overtime question—bat this is a case of human life. If we can make working in mines more safe, we shall have done a great service to humanity, and the name of the Secretary of Mines will go down to history. I appeal to him. I am certain that he is just as eager to see this done as I am. If he cannot order the use of automatic firedamp alarms in mines, can he tell us the reason for the delay, and can he hold out hope that at some time he will be able to make the Order?

6.44 p.m.

Mr.DAGGAR: Many subjects have been touched upon during our consideration of this vote. I do not propose to follow the Secretary for Mines in his references to the extraction of oil from coal—whether by low temperature carbonisation or hydrogenation—smokeless fuel and pulverised coal. Many of us on these benches would approve any Order that would increase safety in the mines of this country. I propose to confine my remarks to the question of overtime at a particular colliery, and to emphasising again the position of wages in the mining industry.
I want, in the first place, to direct the attention of the Committee to the number of accidents that have occurred at the Bedwas Colliery, in Monmouthshire. I do so because the increase in the accident rate at this colliery is, naturally, causing some anxiety, not only to the men employed at the colliery, but to others whose interest it is to keep in touch with the question of the safety of our people who are employed in the mines. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), who is not here to-day, has shown considerable interest in the question of accidents at this colliery, and, on the 3rd July, he put a question to the Secretary for Mines asking what were the percentages of fatal arid of non-fatal accidents at the Bedwas Colliery, and how these percentages compared with those for the South Wales coalfield as a, whole. The hon. Gentleman's reply was as follows:
 The average for the last five years of the annual fatal accident-rate per 100,000 manshifts worked is 0.9 at Bedwas Colliery, compared with 0.48 for the South Wales coalfield. The corresponding averages for non-fatal accidents are 75.3 and 72.4 respectively.
In reply to a supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman said:
 In the case of this particular colliery two things have to be taken into account: first, the natural conditions, and, secondly, a question of discipline over recent years."—[07rt CIA', REPORT, 3rd July, 1934; col. 1739, Vol. 291.]
I submit that those two conditions apply to every mine in South Wales, and that the comparison is not vitiated by the fact that there may be a particular set of physical conditions at the Bedwas Colliery. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that
the Secretary for Mines, in another communication, pointed out that the fatal accident rate at the Bedwas Colliery in 1933 was 1.44 per 100,000 man-shifts worked, while for the whole of South Wales it was 0.49. That shows an increase of 194 per cent. over the accident rate for the whole of South Wales. The nonfatal accident rate at the Bedwas Colliery was 93.12 per 100,000 man-shifts, and for the whole of South Wales it was 67.45, showing an increase of over 40 per cent. at this particular colliery. Here again the Secretary for Mines made a peculiar observation. He said:
 In considering accident rates at a single colliery, the fluctuations from year to year are often bewildering, and it is not wise to draw conclusions from one year's figures without reference to the corresponding figures for a longer period.
I submit, however, that it is a question of comparing the rates of fatal and nonfatal accidents at this colliery with those at all the other collieries in South Wales, and that the questions of physical conditicns and discipline apply to every mine in the country. But the fact that at a particular mine the fatal accident rate is 194 per cent. higher than at all the mines in South Wales, and the non-fatal rate 40 per cent. higher, must give concern, not only to those who are employed in the mines, but to the Mines Department as well, and I am anxious to know what steps the Secretary for Mines proposes to take to reduce the alarming figures at this colliery.
With regard to the question of wages, as recently as last May I made reference to the wages paid to the men employed in the mines of this country, but I assume that no Member of this Committee will require an apology from me for again emphasising the extreme lowness of those wages. I think that very few people, not only in the country, but even in the House of Commons, have appreciated the extent to which miners have suffered reductions in their wages since 1920. In 1920, the total wages paid in the mining industry in Great Britain amounted to £265,000,000. Last year the total wages bill was only £84,000,000—a decrease of £181,000,000 in 13 years. I may be told that there is a smaller number of men employed, and that is quite true, but the average earnings of the men employed in the mines of this country in 1920 were £223 per annum, while for the last year the figure
given by the Secretary for Mines himself is £110, showing a decrease, since 1920, of £113. In South Wales, in 1920, the total wages bill was £65,500,000„ while this year it was only 15,500,000; and the average earnings per person employed in South Wales in 1920 were £252, as against £114 last year, or a reduction of £138. That reduction would have been even greater but for the three months' stoppage that we had in the mines of South Wales in 1920.
I submit that these wages are a scandal, and ought not to be tolerated. Quite recently we had the information that one man in this country had died and left £30,000,000. I want to assure the Committee that the miners of South Wales have no anxiety on the question of being able to die and leave £30,000,000 behind them, because, if they saved their whole annual earnings of £114, they would need to live for 263,000 years in order to save that amount. It may be contended that, coming from South Wales, I have a certain amount of prejudice or bias in favour of South Wales, particularly having regard to the fact that it is a very important exporting district; but I find that similar decreases have occurred in Yorkshire, which is not strictly an exporting district. The total wages in the Yorkshire mining industry in 1920 amounted to £36,000,000, but last year the total was only £15,000,000. The average annual earnings of the men engaged in the mining industry in, Yorkshire in 1920 were £215, whereas in 1933 the average was only £109. Wages are so low that in South Wales and other districts of Great Britain they have had to be supplemented by what are called subsistence allowances. A minimum wage collier in South Wales who in 1914 received a wage of 7s. 4d. per day should now be receiving, taking into account the increase in the cost of living since 1914, 10s. 2.76d., but he only gets at the present moment 8s. 3d., or 1s. 11 3/4. per day below the increase in the cost of living that has taken place since 1914. That is in an industry where, in South Wales alone, in the 10 years 1923–32, 330,731 men and boys were injured, and 2,379 were killed. If hon. Members will examine the Ministry of Labour's list of sweated industries in which wages are regulated by trade boards, they will find that the workers in those industries are
substantially better paid than the colliery worker in South Wales.
We contend, as miners' representatives and as persons who have had some experience in negotiating agreements, that there is no need, even in this depressed industry, for the payment of such low wages or for such variations as there are in the rates of wages paid in the different districts in Great Britain, and that there should be a National Wages Board to determine the wages of our people. In order to demonstrate to the Committee my point that there is no need for the payment of these extremely low wages, I will refer to the last Annual Statistical Summary, issued by the Mines Department, which deals with the output of coal in Great Britain and the cost of production, proceeds and profits of the coal mining industry. According to that Summary, Great Britain is divided into nine districts, four of which last year showed a. loss of £824,848. Those four included South Wales, which recorded a loss of £188,446. The other five districts showed a profit of over £3,000,000, so that the industry as a whole made a profit of no less than £2,177,000. For the quarter ending in March of this year, every district in Great Britain made a profit, and over the whole industry there was a profit of no less than £2,725,000. Even South Wales showed a profit of £34,190. The profit per ton, over the whole of Great Britain, was 1s. 0.32d., but the profit per ton in South Wales was only 1.06d., which was insufficient to permit of an increase in the men's wages, because there is already in South Wales a trading deficiency, which has accumulated since 1931, of £8,833,212, and that deficiency has to be wiped out before the miners in South Wales can hope to get an increase in wages. In view, however, of mining conditions last year, we say that there is no reason why a Welsh miner should not receive as high a wage as a Scottish or English miner. Last year, the average daily wage in Wales was 8s. 11d., while in Great Britain it was 9s. 1.54d. It was 7s. 8d. per day in Northumberland, and 10s. 5d. in North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
It is very strange that these wages have no relation at all to the amount of coal produced by the men who receive them. In three districts where the output was 19.02 cwt. per man-shift worked, the wage
was 9s. 3.20d. per day, while in another district where the output was 23.19 cwt. per man-shift worked, the average daily wage was only 7s. 8.47d., the lowest wage in Great Britain. This is also part of our justification for advocating a national wages board. It is certainly irritating, if not annoying, to hear the coalowners' representatives in this House talk about the impossibility of establishing a national wages board. If you take single colliery, there are some parts of it which pay and some which do not, but if you take the pit as a whole it is a paying proposition. What is true of a pit is true of a colliery and a company, and it is true of several companies. As the pit is taken as the unit whether profits are made or not, why could not every pit be taken as a criterion for the rate at which wages should be paid i With the increase in output, some of it due to machinery, who will deny in. this Committee that miners are not putting their all into industry? Why should they receive such low wages? The mineowners should be capable of selling coal at a price which would guarantee a fair wage to the men who produce it.
I want to give an illustration to demonstrate that it is questionable whether coalowners are the best individuals to sell coal for the workers, who only receive starvation wages. I think that all of us will agree that the 30,000,000 tons of coal used every year, in the generation of electricity, is a substantial quota of the coal produced, and that the price obtained for it is of considerable importance to the mining industry. The Board of Trade has submitted figures of interest, if not to coalowners, then to mining representatives. I am informed, according to that information, that if you take the authorised electricity undertakings under public authorities for the year 1931–32 there was a gross surplus of over £17,000,503, while the companies had a gross surplus of £12,886,000. As regards statutory gas undertakings in the same year, companies had receipts in excess of £44,000,000 and local authorities' undertakings had receipts in excess of £21,000,000. In those two industries the gross receipts were in the region of £95,000,000.
I submit that it is very difficult to make a comparison between these industries and the mining industry, because the undertakings owned by local authorities have to provide out of receipts for inter
est and a sinking fund for repayment of capital. If you take the excess of receipts over expenditure in both kinds of undertakings, both privately and municipally owned, they show what might be termed a profit of over £217,000,000 in 12 months. That is considerably better than the deficiency in South Wales of a little over £8,000,000. The mere fact that there is a profit in these two industries can be explained by the miserable price at which the coal is sold by the coalowners. It is entirely, or at least partially, explained by the fact that coal was sold at 15s. 9d. a ton instead of the 35s. charged in 1920. We object, as miners' representatives, to subsidising all these industries out of the wages paid to miners.
The attitude of the Secretary for Mines is not the same as that of the Minister of Agriculture to landowners. Here is a letter to the Miners' Federation from the Mines Department when it was suggested that a sub-committee should be set up in order to discuss the desirability of the establishment of a national wages agreement. Such a letter would never have emanated from the Minister of Agriculture. It reads:
 I have your letter of 13th April suggesting the setting up of a sub-committee. No such committee is necessary to convince the Government of the desirability of national machinery in the mining industry.
If the coalowners refuse any reason, why should not they be coerced? The letter continues:
 What is wanted is the co-operation of the coalowners or a practical scheme for securing national machinery in spite of the opposition of the coalowners.
That is a remarkable statement. This letter, which states clearly that it wants a practical scheme, is signed by A. E. Faulkner. It continues:
 No practical scheme has yet been suggested by anybody, but we are always ready to consider suggestions without the intervention of a sub-committee.
The Minister of Agriculture understands agriculture; he would never have written to the landowners like that. I would like to say the same of those who have held the office of Secretary for Mines during the last eight or nine years. My hon. Friend wants to interject that that is true also of our own people. I will
readily admit that. My complaint is that for the last seven or eight years, including appointments made by the Labour Government, it has not been remembered
that you cannot be an effective Minister unless you have experience. I believe in putting into office a man who has had experience before he gets there. That is true of the Minister of Agriculture whatever legislation he has introduced. To expect the miners to remain content with such low wages is too much. The demand of those who occupy these benches is that the Government should take effective steps for the improvement of wages.
7.8 p.m.

Mr.E.BROWN: There have been one or two detailed points raised to which I would like to reply at once. The first point raised was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), who was good enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this matter. Of course, in view of the fact that what he is suggesting would require legislation from my Department, it is quite impossible at this stage in the present conditions to say exactly what will be the effect of the judgment. This is especially so in view of the operation as from 1st January, 1935, of standard tonnages and quotas in respect of supplies as well as output. The judgment is, of course, of general application, and there is no appeal from the court of first instance under the Act. As to the bringing of the question by the Executive Board before the central council of coalowners any representations of the council will, of course, be given the most careful consideration. The hon. Member for Eastbourne also raised the question of coastwise traffic. I would point out that this was one of the issues at the root of the problem involved in the recent Orders for greater elasticity and co-ordination of district prices. The Orders have now been signed, and the detailed schemes have to be worked out, and be, of course, submitted to me for approval. We hope they will operate from the beginning of next year. We shall then have to see just how far it is possible for the central council of coalowners to operate a scheme of co-ordination of district prices. It is a complicated and difficult problem.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) naturally raised the Humber ports question. That is a, very long story, and it would take a long time to describe. I cannot trespass on the time of the Committee to do that. I will try to bring
the question into short focus. The position has become a difficult one. Last week the executive board considered steps to be taken for the export trade. There have, I understand, been put into operation emergency measures designed to achieve this end. They amount to temporary increases of standard tonnage for pits which can show that the increased tonnage is for export, foreign bunkers or fishing vessel bunkers. It roust not be overlooked that the natural difficulties in meeting demands still remain. The hon. Member will understand that this is one of the household coal districts, such as Leicester, which is married in the Midland Amalgamation, and while there are advantages of such marriages, this is one of the disadvantages.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) was naturally interested in corn-pressed gas. He will be interested to hear that as far as it goes 20 vehicles are at present being driven by that method of propulsion. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked whether the rule under the Orders of Part I would be submitted to the House for debate. They were submitted to me for approval, and they have been issued. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) raised the question of Bedwas. The answer I gave was based on this fact that there are, no doubt, exceptionally difficult physical conditions owing to the irregularity of work during the last two years. I am speaking from memory, but out of 21 years there have been stoppages amounting to something like seven years. That fact alone will give all Members of the Committee to understand that when you get that kind of atmosphere in a particular undertaking, there will be physical difficulties resulting. In addition, there have been very great difficulties in the matter of discipline arising out of that situation. The hon. Member rightly asked me what the Mines Department would undertake to do about it, and I would tell him that the inspectors have been, and are still, giving particular attention to this colliery, and if my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), in whose division the undertaking is, have any particular suggestions for improving the position, and they will let the inspector know, he will be grateful for any constructive suggestion. I can assure the hon. Members
that the matter will have the most close and careful attention.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised the question of deep and hot mines, and perhaps I cannot do better than respond to the appeal made by my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) by giving the Committee the advantage of the note written by the highest authority on this subject, Dr. J. S. Haldane. Dr. Haldane has given many months of recent years to working not only on this mining problem, but on many other problems for the well-being and safety of the miner, and there is no problem to which he has given more careful attention than this. The hon. Member will know that a whole series of reports on hot and deep mines has been issued by those who, working under Dr. Haldane, have given special attention to them and to the colliery, which the hon. Member himself referred particularly. Dr. Haldane states:
 Mr. Tinker relates quite correctly that the temperature at which he found men working in the colliery which he visited (Parsonage Colliery in Lancashire) was about 103°. This is much hotter than the shade temperature ever reached on the surface in England, but not so hot as is often the case in warm climates. In Australia, for instance, the test matches have sometimes been played at as high a shade temperature, and with the effects of a hot sun superadded.
Those who know Dr. Haldane will know with what sympathy he views all the operations of the miner. He goes on:
 In the Report of the Royal Commission on Health and Safety in Mines (1909) the question is carefully discussed as to whether it is desirable to place (as was. and still is, the case in certain continental countries) some limitation on the temperatures permitted in coal mines. It was pointed out that it is not the air-temperature but the temperature shown by a wet-bulb thermometer that is important, other things being equal, to the men working in a coal mine; also that European miners (at any rate) always stop work before their temperatures rise to any injurious extent. The only case of heat-stroke hitherto recorded in a British coal miner"—
There has been one other—
was that of John Welsby, a Yorkshire miner wearing a rescue-apparatus at the disastrous fire in Hamstead Colliery, near Birmingham, in 1908. Not being accustomed "to a warm mine, he went underground clothed in three layers of flannel, and died from heat-stroke in an extremely gallant and determined effort to reach any men who were still alive.
The Commission unanimously drew the following conclusion—
'On the whole, we do not think that any good object would be served by prescribing a limit of wet-bulb temperature for the carrying on of work in mines.'
It was quite evident that the continental regulations on this subject were based on very imperfect knowledge; and it is surprising that such regulations should still exist. They represent a curious survival of former ignorance.
At the working face referred to by Mr. Tinker the wet-bulb temperature is more than 20° below the air-temperature, and lower than is often met with in other deep mines. The work done—that of filling coal on to a conveyor—is, however, hard, and the position of the miners cramped. With the help of an investigator of the Hot and Deep Mines Committee, the management is endeavouring to secure cooler conditions, so as to diminish the amount of 'sweating entailed by the work.
The subject of heat in mines, its causes, its effects on men, and the various means by which it can be kept within bounds, are discussed in the series of reports of the Deep and Hot Mines Committee, published in the Transactions of the Institution of Mining Engineers since 1919.
Neither the Royal Commission reporting in 1909, nor any report of the Deep and Hot Mines Committee, has suggested any definite limitation of the depth at which coal can be worked, beyond pointing out that the greater the depth the better the ventilation must be. The idea that 4,000 feet would prove to be about the maximum depth at which men can work dates from a time when knowledge of the subject was very limited.
That was dated the 24th November, 1933, after I had asked Dr. Haldane personally if he could give me any observations from his own individual experience as to this subject, and I can assure the hon. Member for Leigh that all is being done in the mine to which he referred to make the conditions as easy as can be, but he must understand the importance of the point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale as to just what would happen economically to the pit if action were taken which would mean the closing of that very difficult seam.

Mr.TINKE,R: Is Dr. Haldane visiting this pit?

Mr.BROWN: The Hot and Deep Mines Committee is still in existence, and it issues reports at various times. I do not know whether a new report is on the way or not.

Mr.TINKER: Will Dr. Haldane investigate this particular colliery? I would like him to do that.

Mr.BROWN: As the hon. Member will see, some of the information in the note which I have read was obtained from this colliery by one of Dr. Haldane's investigators, and it is natural that when this subject is investigated, that mine among others should be examined.
I have been asked various questions on one or two major points. First there is the question of the hon. Member for Normanton and the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) about automatic gas detectors. They asked what obstacle there is, what objection there is, and what prejudice there is in the Mines Department against automatic gas detectors. The answer is that there is no possible objection to these detectors and no prejudice against them, except the overriding responsibility of the Secretary for Mines for the safe working of all the coal mines in the country. That is the only consideration which overrides everything else. The Secretary for Mines has to face the responsibility for the safety of mines, and if he were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Normanton, put forward in all good faith, for the compulsory use of this or that device, what would be the situation?
This device was brought to the attention of the Department some years ago, and with regard to the particular automatic detector which hon. Members have been describing, the Ringrose, those responsible would agree, I am sure, that every possible assistance was given them. in the early stages by the Mines Department. More than that, there was a good deal of good will shown in various collieries in the country towards the new device; but, alas, a new atmosphere was created by the agitation to make the appliance compulsory. Hon. Members sometimes fail to understand, in their keenness to push what they think is a really first-class device, that one of the very worst ways to get progress is to create prematurely an agitation in favour of compulsion. What has been done? The hon. Member for Normanton said that this device has passed every test, but he surely overlooked the three tests in the three pits under working conditions. Any Member of this Committee who would read those reports and would then imagine himself or herself as Secretary for Mines, responsible for analysing and collating the evidence con
tained in those reports, and would say that they had passed a test sufficient to make the use of that particular detector compulsory for the pits, would be making a claim that cannot be justified by the evidence there; but I do not wish to be drawn into that discussion. Personally, I am, very sympathetic towards the development of the detector, but what hon. Members are asking me to do, as Secretary for Mines, is to make it compulsory in all pits.

Mr.T.SMITH: I challenge the hon. Member on that point. During all the discussions in this House from 1929 on this subject, I challenge the Secretary for Mines to say that I have ever insisted on a particular device. I have always insisted that any approved automatic detector should be made compulsory, in order that other inventions may come along, and then something better may be nut on the market.

Mr.BROWN: Not all hon. Members have taken that point of view, and we have to consider more than an automatic detector. We have to consider the flame detector as well. The present position is that there has been no subject that has given more cause for thought, anxiety, and negotiations than this subject for the nearly two years that I have been at the Mines Department, and I assure hon. Members that there is no prejudice against this device, as a device, in my own mind or in the mind of the Department. I am concerned to take no step which will endanger the safety of men working in the mines in any respect. What have we got? After a long period of negotiations, we have drafted regulations, which I need not now discuss. Suffice it to say that they provide regulations for the application, in all the mines of the country, of detectors, flame or automatic. We have had discussions between various bodies concerned, and at the moment, as I informed the hon. Member yesterday in answer to a question, I am discussing with the Mineworkers' Federation some issues which have arisen out of the draft regulations. As the matter is under discussion, I will not say more at the moment. It would not be advisable, in the interests either of the detectors or of the mines as a whole. but I can assure hon. Members that there is no prejudice against the automatic detector in our minds. Our
sole regard, whether it be a flame or an automatic detector, is to get the best in each pit or in each section of a pit that is required for the detection of gas for the prevention of accidents in mines.
With regard to overtime, the other major question, there are one or two special points. The hon. Member for Spennymoor was under a misapprehension when he quoted the resolution about 66 yards. He had overlooked the fact that the resolution says that it should be 66 yards each side of the mothergate, that is to say, 132 yards, against the 110 yards about which he was complaining in the particular case that he raised, where he thought there ought to have been a reduction. May I point out that in that case, when they worked the three hours' overtime, the sprocket of the chain actually broke, and I do not think any hon. Member can doubt that in that case, if a prosecution had been undertaken, it would have been dismissed, because that was legitimately emergency work under the terms of the Act of 1908. It is not enough to see men coming out of a pit and to talk with them to know that they have been working overtime. The issue fcr those who have to take action under the law is whether or not evidence can be got to justify a prosecution. Hon. Members opposite must understand that nothing would do the case they are putting forward against overtime more damage than for prosecutions to be taken which failed in the courts for lack of evidence. In some cases, where it is suspected that there has been illegal overtime, the difficulty is, when the case is framed, to get the evidence to prove that the prosecution is justified.
On the general topic, the hon. Member for Normanton put me one personal question, and asked what was the view of the Mines Department about the actual period at the coal face. If the men are frequently being kept on overtime on a particular face it is obvious that either the face is too long or the work is wrongly organised. In such cases the Department considers the overtime illegal. If, however, an occasional or unexpected event keeps the men late, we consider that the overtime is covered by the emergency Clause of the 1908 Act. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members opposite. With regard to the actual case of the boy, I
suppose I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was thinking of the Bickershaw case. Weighing all the evidence I think the facts are that the men should have been out of the pit at 6.45 a.m, but at 6.20 the shot-firer stopped to finish a job, the explosion occurred at 6.45 and the shotfirer and the boy assisting him were killed. I doubt whether this would be a case for blaming the management; that is when the whole of the evidence is collected.
On the general complaint about overtime, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) went back over four years. He overlooked one thing, or perhaps was not aware of it. In 1930 the then Secretary for Mines, Mr. Shinwell, made a special study of the problem of overtime, and as a result of complaints from Scotland invited the Scottish coalowners to set up a special committee to co-operate with a special committee representing the Scottish miners, for dealing with the overtime difficulty and sifting such complaints as were received. The coalowners set up a committee. In January, 1931, Mr. Shinwell addressed a letter to the Scottish Mineworkers' Union inviting them to set up a similar committee. No reply was received to this letter and the scheme therefore dropped. In this case it seems that the omission was not on the part of the owners but on the part of the miners.

Mr.D.GRAHAM: That was not my point. The point I raised was that four years ago I attended with a deputation at the Mines Department and a promise was specifically made that, in the event of the decision in a case that was to come before the sheriff or the Court of Session going against the men, the Department was prepared to introduce legislation to deal with the matter and so to put an end to the whole question of overtime.

Mr.BROWN: I did not understand that the hon. Member was raising that issue. I thought it was the issue of Mr. Shinwell's action in 1931, and what had followed, and I have given the facts about that. Since that time, from Scotland as elsewhere, various Secretaries for Mines have received many complaints about the matter. Following the complaints made and the information I have gathered in my travels in the mining districts, where
I met some Members of this House who are very keen on the matter, I offered to make investigation in any district which was selected by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. I must say that I am at a loss to understand to-day what hon. Members opposite really want. First of all they look at the Overtime Report. Not one of them has had a good word to say for it. Doubt has been thrown on the capability of the inspectors chosen, or upon the method adopted. Straight away there are other hon. Members who come round and say, "Would the Secretary for Mines take it a little further?" I am not encouraged to do so by the Debate this afternoon.
This investigation was made by two competent mining engineers, who had never had any part in the work of the Mines Department and had not been mines inspectors. They went carefully into the facts, and the evidence is in the report for all hon. Members to read. I have asked the representative organisations for their comments. I have asked them all. With regard to the deputies I shall presently ask not only for comments, but for them to meet me with regard to the state of affairs disclosed underground. With regard to other organisations I cannot close my mind to a limited further investigation. With regard to the association of the men with it, I shall give sympathetic consideration to the idea. I did my best to persuade the mineowners to agree to the association of the men with it, but I have no powers in that matter, which is a matter of management, and the responsibility must primarily lie there.

Mr. TINKER: Surely the Secretary for Mines is not going to say that he cannot give permission for the men's side to be represented when the employers' side is represented and gives the employers' views?

Mr.E.BROWN: The problem is a problem of management and the responsibility must lie there. I endeavoured to obtain the good will of the Mining Association for this, and all I can add now is that I am prepared to examine any detailed comments that are given to me by the associations on the Lancashire Report, and in the light of that and what has been said to-day to consider what further steps can be taken.

Mr.CHARLES BROWN: I think most of us on this side are very disappointed with what the Secretary for Mines has said on the question of overtime. I hope this is not the last word and that the inquiry which has been undertaken in Lancashire is not the last inquiry to be made. Earlier to-day the Minister told the Committee that up to about a year ago this matter had been raised only spasmodically—that was his word—by some of us asking questions in the House, and that as a result of those questions and consultation with the Miners' Federation he decided to set up this inquiry in Lancashire. Since then most of us have refrained from putting further questions in regard to overtime at particular collieries. I myself have deliberately refrained from putting such questions because I wanted to await the results of the inquiry. I did not refrain because the complaints were less frequent. As a matter of fact in my area they are much more frequent now than they were a year ago. I am having complaints about overtime being worked regularly in various parts of the Notts coalfield. Every one agrees that relatively recently there has been a complete revolution in mining practice. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) last year gave evidence in connection with the process of mechanisation in mining. It is rather surprising to me that after a special inquiry over a period of three months the inspectors who have conducted the Lancashire investigation should say—
 No evidence is forthcoming which points to the necessity for amendment of the Act of 1908 in regard to overtime.
That strikes me as very surprising, in view of the complete revolution in mining practice which has taken place. I saw last night the last report of the Secretary for Mines in connection with this matter. I find that coal cut by machinery in 1932 was 80,000,000 tons, or 38 per cent. of the entire output in Great Britain. The report says that in a period of 10 years the proportion of coal cut by machinery has more than doubled. In 1928 less than one-eighth of the entire output of the mines was mechanically transported at or near the actual face, while in 1932 the quantity so dealt with was 56,000,000 tons, or 25 per cent. of the total output. I need not quote any further figures. They have been given
by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and the hon. Member for Abertillery. There has been a complete revolution in mining practice. What we say, in spite of the Lancashire Report, is that the regulation framed in 1908 does not fit the circumstances of to-day. What is the regulation? We have it here on the first page of this report:
No contravention of the foregoing provisions shall be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground:for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident, or for meeting any danger or apprehended danger, or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine.
have been driven to the conclusion that this overtime working on conveyor faces is purely a matter of underground organisation. If the underground organisation is satisfactory there is little or no need for overtime.
I was with the right hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) last Friday when a number of us went down one of the Markham Collieries. Let me explain what happened in regard to the test of the automatic gas detector. We were taken on to a coal-cutting face which was about 160 yards in length. At the end of the face there were four Ringrose gas detectors put into position, and of course there was an ordinary flame lamp taken in. The management altered the ventilation to allow an accumulation of gas near the face. We could hear gas sizzling out of the coal face while we were there, and the ordinary test of the flame lamp was applied. What struck us was that the automatic gas detectors absolutely synchronised with the flame lamp when it showed gas present in the workings. To me it was a completely satisfactory test in that particular coal face at any rate. I agree that the Secretary for Mines has to be very careful in what he does before he makes any particular device compulsory for all the mines in Great Britain. His responsibility is very great. But I hope no prejudice of any kind will he shown towards any particular automatic gas detector that may be put forward to serve this purpose of informing men that gas is present in the working place.
That was a digression from my argument. The management did say to us,
"You can talk to the men if you like" and of course we took the opportunity, or I did, of talking to the men away from the manager and away from anyone who had anything to do with the company. Being interested in this question of overtime I asked them whether it was customary for them to work overtime on this particular face. The answer was that at first they did work overtime. I agree that in some ways what they had to say substantiated some paragraphs in the report. But they also said that when the underground organisation was more satisfactory overtime was very infrequent. If it be a question of underground organisation, is it a legitimate argument to put forward that you have to work overtime in the initial stages? I do not think it is.
Now that experience has been accumulated in machine mining, surely a mine management which intends installing machinery Where it was previously not in operation is not unaware of the experience of mine managements elsewhere and can at once adopt underground organisation to meet the new circumstances of machine mining. They do not do that, and I am afraid that what the Secretary for Mines said this afternoon will be an encouragement to them not to adapt underground organisation to the changed circumstances of machine mining rapidly. He seemed to go out of his way—perhaps he thought there would be an attack on this report—to defend it most energetically and passionately. I think he made a mistake in doing that, because mine managements do not attempt in the initial stages to adapt their underground organisation to the changed method which they are introducing. I have a pit in mind which I will not mention by name now, but about which I shall have to put some question in view of what the Secretary has said to-day, where the women folk do not know when the men will come home from work. Overtime is regular and persistent, and innumerable complaints reach us about what is happening. I ask the Secretary for Mines not to make this his last word on the question of overtime. Let him not think that this report settles the matter. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he would undertake some further inquiries. I dare say that the mining Members from various parts of the coalfield would put up a claim for the inquiry to
be made in their particular districts. For my part, I should like him to make it in Nottinghamshire. The circumstances there are very peculiar, and there are special reasons why he should make the inquiry in that area.

Mr.E.BROWN: If I do make an inquiry, I shall invite the mine workers to name the district.

Mr.C.BROWN: I am therefore speaking through the Secretary of Mines to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and I will ask them, when they are asked by the Minister to name another area for the inquiry, that it should be in the county of Nottingham.

Mr.GLU CKSTEIN: I suggest that the hon. Member should ask Mr. Spencer.

Mr.C.BROWN: I do not want to be drawn into any controversy about the two unions, but the hon. Member has provoked me, and I will say something about it. I said that there were peculiar circumstances in Nottinghamshire, and I wanted to leave the two unions out of it. There are in that area about 50,000 miners, and perhaps 10,000 of them are in 'what is called the Spencer Union. A similar number is in the Notts Miners' Association, but the great bulk of the miners are not organised at all. From our point of view that is a tragedy, and I dare say that it is in some sense from the owners point of view also. The Spencer Union, as it is called, does not in the ordinary sense of a trade union protect the men in their working conditions. It makes wage arrangements and it handles compensation cases, but it does not concern itself about the day to day conditions of the men working in the industry. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluckstein) can get up and give any evidence to show

that the Spencer Union interests itself in the working conditions

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I am in a difficulty to see where the responsibility for the Secretary for Mines comes in the observations of the hon. Member.

Mr.C.BROWN: I want to link this to the question of overtime. I did not intend to raise this matter, and it was only.the ardent supporters of the Spencer Union who dragged me into the controversy. I was going to leave it alone 'and just appeal to the Secretary for Mines to choose Nottinghamshire for the inquiry because the circumstances there are peculiar.
There are many other things that might be said, but I know that hon. Members want to get on to another subject. I want to say, however, that I am sorry that the Secretary for Mines made no response to the passionate appeal of the hon. Member for Abertillery in regard to the wages that miners are receiving throughout the coalfield of Great Britain. He told us that the average yearly earnings of the miners in the British coalfield is now £110. This House has recently been voting subsidies for the wheat grower, for the cattle raiser and for the shipowner. I do not know how many more subsidies the House will vote, but if it is going to vote many more, we on these benches are entitled to 'ask, if the miners' wages cannot be improved in any other way, for a subsidy for the mining industry so that the workers can be more adequately rewarded.
Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £137,100, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 215.

Division No. 337.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Paling, Wilfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
 Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Salter, Dr. Allred


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydv1)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Healy, Cahir
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
West, F. R.


Crippa, Sir Stafford
John, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Leonard, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYER.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peat, Charles U.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Albery, Irving James
Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wcife
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hastam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bainiel, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col.Cuthbert M.
Ramebotham, Herwald


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Heligers, Captain F. F. A
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ray, Sir William


Barrie, Sir Charles Cougar
Hepworth, Joseph
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bernays, Robert
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, John R.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Blindell James
Hoidsworth, Herbert
Rickards, George William


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, John Roland


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ropner. Colonel L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown,Brig.-G en. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burnett, John George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Jamieson, Douglas
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Janner, Barnett
Sandeman, Sir A. N.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Stewart Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Scone, Lord


Christie, James Archibald
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clarke, Frank
Kerr, LieutCol. Charles(Montrose)
Shaw, Captain William.T. (Forfar)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Slater, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Coifox, Major William Philip
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir J. Walker(Barrow-in-F.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Conant, R. J. E.
Liddell, Walter S.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cook, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liewellin, Major John J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hockney,C.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T.E.


Crossley, A. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,yeovil)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
spens, William Patrick


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dickle, John P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Aye)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stevenson, James


Doran, Edward
McKie, John Hamilton
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Drummond-Wolff,H. M. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captaisi W. F.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makine, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eady, George H.
Mander, Groffrey le M.
sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Eimley, Viscount
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Templeton, William P.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Milen, Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morgan, Robert H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewlck (Walisend)


Fremantie, Sir Francis
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison, William Shepherd
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nall, Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Goff, Sir Park
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Palmer. Francis Noel
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Osbert
Womersley.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion,by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £28,110,018 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,506,000) be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £15,500,000 has been voted on account.]
8.3 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
When the Parliamentary Secretary made his speech on the Estimates before the end of May I thought he struck a very optimistic note, but since that time I have had an opportunity of re-reading his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT and also of studying the Board of Education Report for 1933, and I must confess at the outset that I cannot find much justification for the Minister's optimism. First of all, I understand there are roughly 2,000,000 children in this country between the ages of two and five, and it is certainly true to say that of those 2,000,000 children no fewer than 200,000 come from overcrowded or slum homes in this country. I wonder if hon. Members think what kind of life they lead from day to day, living in these often squalid houses, playing in squalid streets, their mothers in scores of thousands of cases going out to work all day. It is not any wonder that the infant mortality rate of these children exceeds 100 per 1,000 in many cases, and the disease rate must in many cases be between 200 and 300 per 1,000. It has been pointed out by Sir George Newman year after year for the last 12 years that what is wanted for children in such conditions is the establishment of more nursery schools. I should like to quote from the report of 1926. Sir George Newman said:
 There is no doubt at all that the effective health supervision of children between five and seven is a public health problem of great importance and urgency.
In 1929, he said:
We shall never be in a position to deal satisfactorily with our school medical problem until we are meeting the physical conditions of children between infancy and school life.
From that great authority we see there is an urgent need for the establishment of nursery schools. It has been pointed out by many Members in this House what great advantages accrue to the State from such establishments. Sir George Newman states that children coming from the nursery schools are physically better than those coming from poor homes. He says that in the case of the slum child the nursery school secures a new standard of health and that it is almost magical to see the rate of growth showing a triumph over the handicap of home environment. I see from the Education Report of last year that we have in this country 58 nursery schools only. Obviously, for a population of 200,000 slum children we need at least 250 nursery schools. There ought to be an additional 200 to deal adequately with this problem. We are told that this may cost something like £2,000,000 from a building point of view. I suggest that the £2,000,000 would be a very good and beneficent investment for the State and certainly much better in these times from every national point of view than the millions squandered by this House in various subsidies in the last few years. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that owing to the financial stringency they have had to impose restrictions on the development of nursery schools. Frankly, I cannot see much ground for the Minister's optimism so far as this department of educational life is concerned.
Then in the Debate of 30th May, in considering whether or not local authorities should be authorised to raise the leaving age, the Parliamentary Secretary said there were various points which the board took into consideration. He gave some arguments, which I thought strange, why local authorities should not be encouraged to raise the school age. First, he said that if they raised the age in one area only it might cause infiltration of children in search of employment. For the life of me I cannot understand how that is an argument against Bradford or Burnley or Gloucester raising the school age, because it seems to me that, first of all, the children in the town where the age is raised will certainly have the benefit of improved education, and, secondly, the area from which the children are alleged to be infiltrated to get better employment will have less un-
employment. One area will get better education and the second area will have less unemployment, neither of which is other than a definite advantage. I have heard that two blacks do not make a white, but I do not see how two whites make a black, and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would explain to my rather dull brain where the argument lies against raising the school age. The second argument was that of the difficulty of making proper accommodation for the children. Seeing that the school population is and will be rapidly decreasing I cannot see how the question of accommodation is an argument against allowing any town to raise the school age.
The third reason I thought extraordinary. It was that the state of unemployment must be taken into consideration and that where there is little unemployment the children are staying on at school voluntarily. How that is an argument against any area being allowed to raise the school age is beyond me. The fourth argument is, I think, the proper one. The real reason why the present Government dislikes any town raising the school age is contained in the statement that:
 Finally, there is always the factor of expenditure.
That is the real argument. It may cost a few thousand pounds or less in Bradford or Gloucester to raise the school age and, though we can find money for brewers, or shipbuilders, or hop growers, or merchants in various branches of industry, this great country cannot afford £5,000 or £10,000 to allow a progressive local authority to give better education for its children. That is the policy of the National Government as far as the raising of the school age is concerned, and I cannot find much room for optimism. Turning again to the report for 1933 it informs us that there are still in this country 1,200 schools on the black list. That is a decrease of 114 in a year, hut, if that be the rate at which we are going to decrease our black-listed slum schools, it will take 10 years to wipe out the present slum schools, and I have no doubt that by then there will be another 1,200 schools that ought to be on the black list, so that we shall always be 10 years behind in clearing out the slum schools of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary said the black-list school problem was one of practical im-
possibility owing to the difficulty of getting proper sites. It is always so difficult to make any progress in education. If we want a scheme for a greyhound or speedway track, a cinema, or a public house, there is plenty of ground in all parts of England. They have sprung up in the last 10 years and the greyhound track requires 20 times the space of the average elementary school.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The hon. Member has omitted an important sentence.

Mr. WEST: The hon. Member clan correct me when he speaks. We are told that the board have examined the staffing to get more uniformity. "Uniformity" is a good word; it does not mean more efficiency apparently, but in some areas they have rather more teachers per school than in others, and uniformity means scaling down the number of teachers per school, because the report informs us that in 1934 the board is to recognise 1,600 fewer teaching posts than in the previous year—another achievement. The Minister told us the number who completed training in colleges last July was 8,600, and he said that by December, 1933, of those who had passed out of training colleges all except 1,400 had obtained posts. Six months after leaving the training colleges, where they were often maintained by great sacrifices of their parents, 16 per cent. were without posts. We were told that by May, 1934, nearly 12 months after leaving, there were only 800 of the last college leavers still out of work. Ten per cent. of the teachers leaving college last year were still out of work a year after leaving. As an ex-teacher, I do not regard that as a satisfactory achievement. The hon. Member said that much had been done to eliminate extravagant staffing by the assimilation of more pupils without the employment of additional teachers. They have been able to have more scholars per class, more students per school, without employing any more teachers—another achievement of the Board of Education in 1933. Steps have been taken, according to the report, to secure a general reduction of the number of training college places and this will result in reducing the output of teachers substantially. There are 8,300 classes, the report tells us, with more than 50
per class, an increase of 300 on the previous year. There are 55,000 classes in Britain with over 40 per class.
An hon. Member behind me deplored the fact that in some secondary schools there were now classes of more than 30 students per class. I also think it is deplorable that in a secondary school there should be as many as 35 in a science class. I know that it is impossible to get efficient work. It is just as deplorable to have 40 or 50 students in a class in an elementary school as it is to have 35 in a secondary school. I have taught boys of nine, and I have taught boys of 15, 16 and even 18. If I had the choice of having a large class, I would rather have 50 boys of 16 than 50 of nine. My most miserable and difficult teaching time was when for a year in a training college I was given a class of 55 little boys of nine who all got the better of me. Two boys of seven would get the better of many Members of this House, let alone having 00 in a class. Three hundred more classes to-day with over 50 per class than in 1933—I do not see in that state of affairs much ground for the optimism that the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have. The hon. Gentleman told us about the point of view of a child who was looking through the railings of a London school and, when he was asked why he did not go inside, replied, "Too many teachers." I suppose it was a joke, but. I cannot understand the point of the joke. It seems to me to mean that in London schools there are too many teachers. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that in these schools, where there are thousands of classes with 50 or more in a class, that is too many teachers, I wonder what he wants. I think he ought to sack all the masters and employ policemen and sergeant-majors.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I said I disagreed with the point of view of the child.

Mr. WEST: The hon. Gentleman did not show much disagreement. Perhaps I did not read it far enough. I know that in London the vast majority of elementary schools have classes of more than 40. Many of the central schools in London, which are supposed to be among the best central schools in Great Britain, have more than 40 or 50 per class. In my last school, a central school, they
were teaching German to classes of 45. Anyone who has had the misfortune to teach or to be taught German, of all languages the one most needing individual tuition, can imagine the poor master trying to teach German to a class of 45 students. I feel inclined to say, "Lord help that schoolmaster." He must have even more optimism than the Parliamentary Secretary. I wish the hon. Gentleman could be compelled to go for a. year to the East End of London and teach French or German to 45 children. He would come back and be an enthusiastic supported of a maximum, not of 30, but of a dozen, and I would be quite enough for him to teach.
The report goes on to tell us that in 1932 there were 900 secondary schools in England with fees of less than £10. Now there are only 500 schools with fees under £10. In 1932 there were 160 with fees under £3. Now there are no schools with fees less than £3. It will be seen that the board reports that there are no longer any schools entirely free from fees, and that the number charging fees of 6 guineas or less has now been reduced from 239 to 88. The Board of Education can boast in its report that it has actually succeeded in abolishing all the secondary schools where the fees are nil, and that they have reduced materially the number of secondary schools where the fees are low. They have succeeded, in short, in making secondary education still more impossible to the vast majority of working-class children. That is another foundation for the optimism that the Parliamentary Secretary displayed so well two months ago. It goes on to report that the new pupils in secondary schools have declined by 4,000 in the year, the number of students in part-time schools has declined by 60,000, and the number of students in evening schools is down by over 150,000. These are the achievements that the Board of Education has been able to manage in twelve months. It has reduced the children, increased the fees, increased the classes and decreased the teachers, and the Parliamentary Secretary is very optimistic. I cannot understand these achievements at all.
I do understand the report telling me that they have been able to save in the last year more than£800,000, after allowing for the increase of£400,000 in
teachers' pensions. That is a saving, apart from pensions, of£1,200,000. Now they can boast that£7,000,000 has been cut off our educational Estimates in three years, while our armaments Estimates have gone up by£8,000,000. That is progress from the National Government point of view. In my constituency there are bills on the hoardings advertising the achievements of the National Government. I have no doubt that many Members of the Government have read with surprise what the National Government has done. Next to "What Guinnesses will do for you," you can see the achievements of the National Government. Might I suggest another poster narrating the achievements of the National Government in education which, unlike the present poster, would be accurate. It would be,

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION.

1. Abolition of the building grant.
2. Stopped building new nursery schools.
3. Cut teachers' salaries.
4. Reduced the number of teachers.
5. Increased the number of large classes.
6. Increased the fees for secondary schools.
7. Abolished free secondary education.
8. Decreased the number of free places.
9. Decreased the number of students in part-time establishments.
10. Saved £7,000,000 yearly by ruthless economy.

I used to wonder why the average Tory Member was so opposed to education, but in time I understood why. The average Tory Member really believes that, so long as working-class children remain stupidly ignorant, they will support Tory policy. If it be not so, I would ask the Noble Lady and others to support me, and we will test this feeling before I sit down. Hon. Members claim to be sportsmen in many ways. Playing the game is a slogan of theirs. They would hate to go shooting pheasants or hunting foxes which had some physical disability. It would not be playing the game. What about playing the game from the human point ov view? What about the competition between the rich man's son and the poor man's son in the educational and commercial world? The rich man's son has every advantage on his side. Quite apart from the advantage of better education, no matter what his brains may be like or whether he
has any commercial qualifications, he cannot very well fail to succeed. The mine owner's son or the manufacturer's son, no matter if he is empty headed, will start very high up in the mine or the factory or in organisation. The son of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) may be the most brilliant boy or a most dull kind of boy, but he cannot fail to make a name for himself and do well in industrial life.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, yes, he can.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: With all deference to the hon. Member, if he chooses to inspect the results of the Appointments Board of Cambridge he will find that the position is absolutely different.

Mr. WEST: It may be true, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, that things are different at Cambridge. I am not speaking about Cambridge or Oxford education, but generally about the boy who goes out into industry. I have worked in a coal mine and in the textile industry, and it has been my experience to find a factory owner's son come straight from the university and, in a few weeks, become one of the leading men in Bradford. I have seen the mine-owner's son come straight from the university, and, in a very short time, made a director of the colliery. The sons of hon. Members opposite come straight from the universities, and in less than five years you see them as directors of banks and breweries, and before they are 30 years of age you find them directors of as many as 20 different companies, not because of their brains, but because of the influence behind them from a family point of view.

Sir J. WITHERS: May I remind the hon. Member that half the students of the University of Cambridge are sent up by charity, and a very large number of the boys—many of whose parents are on the dole—who go out, are successful?

Mr. WEST: I agree that it is true that three times as many scholarship children who compete for university places are successful as those of the fee-paying children, which goes to show that where working-class children have an equal opportunity they compete very well indeed with the children of any other class of society. That is why I want an equal opportunity to be given to the poor man's
child. The poor man's boy, quite apart from losing the tremendous influence which is so beneficial in giving a boy a start, has in a large percentage of cases no real education at all. He leaves school at 14 just when body and mind are capable of benefiting from and understanding education, and within two years of his leaving school he loses a great deal of the so-called education which has been given. Therefore, I assert that the poor man's boy, in competition for work and in other things, has not a dog's chance compared with the rich man's son. It is like a boxing competition where the rich man fighter has expert tuition in boxing and expert aid while training, and the poor man's son has no tuition whatever and no special aid, and has both arms fastened behind his back when he goes into the ring. I am not asking for special preferences for the poor man's son. I do not assert that the poor man's son is brainier than the rich man's son. I think that the Creator has spread brains equally among all classes of society, but the chances of the poor man's boy are infinitesimal compared with the chances of the wealthy man's boy. There is no doubt about that.
Hon. Members often assert that the Labour party gain votes owing to appeals to prejudice, class hatred, ignorance and so on, and that if we had an educated democracy the position would be altogether different. It is said that the National Government and Tory philosophy succeed because they appeal to reason and to the enlightened thinking people of this country. If it be true that the National Government and Tory philosophy are dependent upon an educated democracy, they ought to be the keenest party in the country in aiming at an educated people. On the other hand, if that be true, the Labour party have everything to lose by having an educated democracy. If it be true that our ideas are stupid, and if our programme be wrong, then a thinking population will turn us out and replace us by Members of the party opposite.
The four parties here claim that their programme would be supported by thinking people. I honestly believe that the programme of the Labour party will be accepted more and more as people become more educated. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the National Govern-
ment and Tory philosophy will be more and more rejected as the people become more educated, but they believe the opposite. Surely, if we believe opposite things, the only real test is for us both to strive to get the best educated people in this country, and to let them test us.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I have the agreement of at least two hon. Members opposite. Let us put the matter to the test. I- suggest a policy of eight points, which, I think, are the best lines of advance in order to bring about what we all desire—an educated and enlightened people. These are the eight points: (1) Let us pull down and replace the slum schools of England, rapidly. (2) Let us build more special and nursery schools. (3) Let us provide a more liberal supply of books and better equipment in all the schools. (4) Let us reduce classes to 40 as a maximum, and as soon as possible to 30. (5) Let us appoint only qualified teachers in future. (6) By providing secondary education for all children, let us make our new post-primary schools approach secondary school standard in staffing, equipments, etc. (7) Abolish all secondary school fees. (8) Let us raise the school age to 15 and insist on it being introduced as soon as possible. I sincerely believe that those are the best lines for bringing about what we all desire—an educated people. The result would be such a thinking democracy that party programmes would be considered and weighed, and parties would be rejected much more fairly and reasonably than they are at the present time. That programme would go a long way towards securing schooling opportunities for all children, irrespective of class, income or social position, and would secure the support of every single Members of the Labour party.
8.35 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I want to speak mainly about education in its post-primary stage, and to do so rather as one who is responsible for its administration in one of our largest counties than from a political point of view. I am not sure that education and politics get on very well together. As I see it from the practical point of view of trying to look after education, things are not right as they are. Part of our post-primary system, the senior school system,
is truncated and incomplete. A part of it called the secondary school system may be a good preparation for the university, but as only a small proportion of children go from the secondary school to higher education that is not the important thing. The schools to-day above all should be a preparation not for a university course but for life, and they are not that at present. There is a distinction, a difference, between the senior elementary and the secondary school systems in status, in staffing, and in methods of administration. The two types are often administered by entirely different authorities in the same area, whereas 1 feel that our aim should be to get rid of the two systems and have one system of post-primary education.
I should like to lay down one or two general principles and in order to be at all concise I have to be rather dogmatic about it. I say, first, that the basic idea underlying the Hadow Report, that there should be a change of school and environment for children after the infant school stage about every four years, is absolutely sound. I think that not only should the school vary but that the dominant aim of the schools should vary. It is difficult to define the different types of schools in a single word, but if I may use one word to describe the aim of the four types of schools, as I see the system, I should say that the aim should be, training from eight to 11 plus; education for the four years after that to 15 plus, individual development for the three or four years after that, and specialised study at a university for the three or four years after for those who are able to get there. I call these courses, primary, intermediate, secondary and university. The thing which stands most in the way of our getting, to that system is the disorganisation of post-primary education, and there again the Hadow Report hits the nail/on the head. They recommended that the second type of school, the intermediate and the secondary should be equal in status and quality and that the distinction between the two types should be brought to an end. I want four years of post-primary education for everybody, which means that it must be compulsory and must be free.

Mr. COVE: Would you raise the school age?

Sir F. ACLAND: Yes.

Mr. COVE: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of compulsory raising of the school age?

Sir F. ACLAND: Certainly.

Mr. COVE: Is the Liberal party in favour of it?

Sir F. ACLAND: Certainly, but as I shall show a great many things must be clone in order to make that act in any way an educational benefit to the country. That system must be free. In my submission there are two sorts of freedom, and I am not sure that freedom from school fees is not the less important of the two. The children of some parents would have to be helped through that system by travelling, books and maintenance allowances, in addition to having no fees to pay, but that does not in the least offend my principle, that parents with incomes of about£250 should pay a steadily graduated fee according to their means right up to the full cost of the education provided, if they can afford it. I know that that is not quite the view of hon. Members of the Labour party, but I can see no objection to it on principle, provided that the children of working-class parents on a basis of £5 per week are entitled to attend these schools without any fee at all.
My experience of it more and more comes to this, that the most vital form of freedom is freedom for the school to work out and work on their own lines according to the character and requirements of the population they serve. There ought to be no external examination tests in these schools at all; that is these intermediate schools. You cannot introduce external examination tests without making the passing of these examinations the chief aim of the schools, and that is really the death of the best sort of education. External examination tests are devised by competent men from the universities, and being competent they will naturally be inclined to think that being well educated themselves they are competent, perhaps in spite of their education and not because of it, to devise tests which will discover whether the children have had the sort of education which has made them the remarkable people they are. That means, inevitably, that the educational tests they devise and the syllabus they lay down will be
entirely out of date. Education is a preparation for life, and nothing is developing and changing more rapidly than life, although that is not always realised because often the things we realise least are the things which are going on under our eyes all the time.

Mr. COVE: What is education for life?

Sir F. AC LAND: We all know of the certificate examinations, the test as to whether a boy or girl has been sufficiently prepared to take advantage of a university course, and, if so, they obtain sufficient credit for a. test equivalent to matriculation. Therefore, our secondary schools compete against one another in order to obtain that standard. You may not object to that as a foundation for a university course, but that is as much beside the point as if you were preparing children for life in the moon, because only 5 per cent. of the children go to a university. If you lay a foundation, it ought to be a foundation for something which is really going to follow—and that is what our education in the secondary schools is not.
I happen to be chairman of an education committee and of a housing committee. If the housing committee were to leave the houses which they get reconditioned simply as foundations, never to be built upon, we should hear about it very quickly from the ratepayers and the Ministry of Health. But that is exactly what the education committee is doing in these secondary schools. They are preparing the children for something which the children never do afterwards, and the Board of Education is almost bound to look on at that process. I want to cut loose from all that kind of thing and to make the training of the children a better opening for life. There must be tests. I am not suggesting that there should not be tests. There must be internal tests in these schools and they must be open to inspection but these external tests, originally introduced with the best intentions and meant to provide a stimulus, have tended more and more to cause paralysis except in the hands of a minority of teachers who can rise superior to them. To come to the very pertinent question put by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) I would reply to him by asking: Should not the boys and girls who are going out into
life at the age of 15 or 16 with no further education than what they have succeeded in getting in these schools, know something about the structure of government, of legal institutions, of social, political and economic questions? I think so. Should not these schools by ceasing to concentrate attention on foreign languages, for instance, be able to "knock holes in the dark," as Stevenson said about the lamplighter, in regard to all sorts of subjects.

Mr. COVE: What political or social philosophy would the right hon. Gentleman wish to have taught to the children? Would it be Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Communist or what?

Sir F. ACLAND: I know enough about the teachers to know that if you gave them freedom to teach and did not tie them down to syllabuses they would teach sensibly and they would teach better than they do at present. What is wrong is the tying down of the teachers to syllabuses of subjects which have no practical connection with the afterlife of the children or with the wonderful power which children have of taking an interest in subjects. If you give the teachers a chance they will be able to "knock holes in the dark," to open windows upon all sorts of subjects. I do not wish to go through the whole alphabet but taking only the first letter you have art, architecture, archaeology, astronomy, anthropology, aeronautics. Those are all subjects in which children could be interested.

Mr. COVE: What political philosophy is there in that?

Sir F. ACLAND: When I referred to politics I was using the word in the broad sense of the art of government. Politics does not necessarily mean party politics. I say, trust your teachers, give them freedom and they will do little harm even if they do happen to belong to one particular party or another. Again, the boys and girls at our secondary schools should have a period of physical training of some kind every day. Those who know the subject are agreed upon that. But all these things are now cut out, because of these syllabuses imposed from outside, and I believe that subjects of that kind ought to come in and would come in naturally, if the schools had freedom. With that freedom you would get in time—because it would take teachers a little
time to realise that they were free—considerable diversity in the schools in the subjects taught and in the way in which they were treated and illustrated. There would be different types of schools with an agricultural, a technical or a commercial bias as the case might be. Sometimes you would have enough children coming together in each year to have parallel courses in the schools, but the general aim ought to be the same in all these intermediate schools, namely, to give a preparation for life—I cannot use any other phrase—in its broadest sense and not training for particular occupations.
I know that in some cases employers insist or try to insist upon occupational training. Some employers will not take boys into their offices unless the boys know shorthand, bookkeeping, the use of the typewriter and the telephone and things of that kind. I think that is a narrow view. I think we ought to try to widen the employers' view rather than narrow down the courses in the schools to suit the employers. If I had an office boy I should not want him to come to me knowing how to use the telephone, I could teach him that in ten minutes. What I would want the boy to be able to do would be to give an adequate excuse over the telephone on the spur of the moment when I was not hack from lunch at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. COVE: He would have to be a jolly good "fibber."

Sir F. ACLAND: That needs readiness, imagination and power of invention and I think those faculties are capable of being produced and would be produced if we had secondary education free and had the finest thing in the way of education that the State could give for everybody. You would get these things more than you get them now and that would be more worth while than typewriting, shorthand or book-keeping by double entry. Now I come to the point which was made by the hon. Member who asked about the outside structure of the schools system.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that aspect of the subject with which lie has been dealing, may I point out that he has omitted something which some of us regard as very important. What about the training
of the child for the life to come, by a teacher who is qualified to give that instruction?

Sir F. ACLAND: I have so much to say that I do not propose to deal with the question of religious instruction. I could say a great deal about the duality of our system and the right of entry and all these matters, but if the hon. Member does not mind I will not go into them on this occasion. What is it that prevents us from having a uniform structure for our intermediate schools, in which the distinction between senior, higher grade, secondary and grammar schools would disappear? It is much too big a subject to be dealt with in a speech of this kind, but there are two matters which stand out in connection with it. One is the question of the school-leaving age and the other is the standstill order which at present prevails under the board's regulations with regard to the reorganisation of elementary education under the Hadow system. The extension of the school age raises primarily an issue affecting the present senior and higher grade schools on the one hand and the ordinary secondary schools on the other, but I am not sure whether it is realised how much the extension of the school age—unless it is to be done as was suggested county by county—depends on other things which will have to be done first.
Take counties such as that with which I am associated. You can do it there but unless you complete the structure of organisation you will get a worse education instead of a, better education as a result. To prolong the age of compulsory attendance will, of course, be unpopular with many parents. I do not blame parents for wanting to get the advantage of their children's earnings as soon as they can. But the right way to overcome that unpopularity, it seems to me, is not to distribute millions in giving maintenance grants to parents. You will have to give maintenance grants in some cases but the best way is to make the parents and the children both realise that the extra year's schooling is going to be worth while. There is a lot of work to be done in a great many places, before we can say that it is worth while. A great deal would have to be done in the normal rural area before we could say it.
Whatever you do some parents will be unreasonable. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary who told me a story, in which there was a good deal of truth, of a headmaster who sent a boy home to his parents at the end of the term with the report: "Stubborn and stupid. Would make an admirable parent." I believe that in a few years one could get the other sort of parents on to one's side in this matter if, and only if, the extra period of schooling is to be what it ought to be. That is impossible in our country districts as they are now until the reorganisation of elementary education, now suspended, is completed. Half the schools in Devonshire for example have under 50 children each; which means that one master or often one mistress has to take all the children from eight to 14 in one class in one room for over six years of their school lives. The way these teachers manage convinces me that the age of miracles is not past. Many of them must surely be glad to see the back of the boys and girls of 14 when the time comes for them to leave school. To expect children to be taught efficiently after the age of 14 if they stay in small village or hamlet schools is to expect an impossibility. The ratepayers and taxpayers would be paying large sums for education which would be worse and not better; not until there are senior schools for these senior pupils will the extra money spent on education be worth while.
If at first there is not sufficient accommodation in senior schools that can be improvised very easily, in view of the fact that the school population will tend downwards for a few years; but no one can improvise better teaching in those small rural schools where there are so many children taken in one class. My point is that if the extension of the school life is to be carried through on the basis of a national policy it must wait for this reorganisation into junior and secondary schools, and the obvious moral is that that reorganisation ought to start at once-The present standstill order concerning the reorganising of our elementary schools into senior and junior schools must be removed if we are to have any chance of a uniform system of secondary education. In the towns, where education authorities are allowed to reorganise if they can show thereby a saving, the problem of trans-
port does not arise, and they can often reorganise and show a saving; but in the country districts the problem of transport does arise, and, therefore, unless one can close a school or two in the process of moving the seniors one can do nothing at all. Reorganisation has proceeded more slowly in the country than in the towns, because there were so many adverse considerations to be taken into account. It is not so much a question of the grant formula as of the entire standstill that is to happen in the country districts if it is said that they cannot reorganise at all if there is extra expenditure.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what standstill order he is referring?

Sir F. ACLAND: I am referring to what happened when there was a financial crisis. I do not think that anybody in rural districts is allowed to build senior schools except on two conditions: one that the state of the population demands it, because the education authority has to provide accommodation for the children; and the other condition is that their action will result in removing schools from the black list. The ordinary policy, which we were engaged upon, of settling the centres where we would build senior schools to which to bring the senior pupils has been stopped. I call that a standstill order.

Mr. LOFTUS: I am a member of a local education authority, and in the year 1933–34 we are spending more money on building central senior schools than we spent in any year in building elementary schools during the last 10 years, with one exception.

Sir F. ACLAND: I suggest that that is in a more or less urban district.

Mr. LOFTUS: Purely agricultural.

Sir F. ACLAND: Then the hon. Member must be much cleverer than we are in Devonshire. Surely it will be agreed that we are not allowed to build senior schools now in the normal way unless we can show a gain by so doing, except where it is necessary for the sake of the population or in black list cases.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am sorry to interrupt, but only last year I personally invited the right hon. Gentleman to propose some further schemes of reorganisation, and I am still waiting for them.

Sir F. ACLAND: I am extremely glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, because it shows that there is something doing somewhere. In Devonshire we have been well treated by the inspectors of the Department and we are on extraordinarily good terms with them. We must get this matter looked into by our officials, but I am still most definitely of opinion that no indication has been given to us that we were free to go forward with reorganisation except, as I said, in the two cases of increasing popuiation or the existence of black list schools. If I am speaking to those who are already converted, so much the better. The point I have to make in this connection is this, that even when—as perhaps I should have put it—the board gives the order to go and encourages us to go ahead with this reorganisation, M spite of the extra expenditure which it will involve by reason of the cost of transport, the board must not think it possible for us to do very much very quickly. It will not mean an extra flood of expenditure, and of grants from them. Sites are difficult to buy, schools take time to build, the reluctance of parents has to be overcome, and the difficulties with denominational managers in the case of denominational schools are not easy to overcome. Worst of all, it is a very easy thing during a financial crisis to tell county councils they must not continue with the programmes on which they were then engaged, but a very different thing to get them to go ahead again. I am having difficulty with county councillors who cannot see that it is only through the establishment of senior schools in the rural districts that we can get the schools which they want, giving an education which really will keep young people in touch with the land and interested in country pursuits. As long as education is given in tiny village schools it is bound to be bookish. Only when we can get the pupils into the bigger schools, with gardening, organised games and woodwork, can we make education reasonably practical; but, of course, it takes time for people to realise that.
I recall a short story which a farmer friend of mine told an education committee the other day. He had got one of his men to show some friends round his farm and garden. After they had gone the man, a Devonshire labourer, said to him, "Them was terrible high up
learned folks, weren't they?" "Yes," said my friend. "I thought so," replied the man, "they didn't seem to know nowt." That illustrates what we have to overcome. When we get senior schools established—and I am glad to hear that there must have been some misapprehension on the part of my officials as to the attitude of the board—not only the children and the parents, but employers also will realise that it is a very good thing to get better that practical education. If we can only get that idea spread the objection to the extension of the school age will largely disappear, because employers and parents will realise that it is tremendously worth while for the children to remain at school. I need not rub in my point that to remove what I have regarded hitherto as the standstill order is the primary job. But I think that is so, because it is only when we have our senior schools established and are able to take children up to the age of 15 or 15 1/2 that we shall be able to get the benefit we ought to have from the extension of the school age, which ought to follow as the schools are ready.
I have one last point, and that is that what is, if possible, more essential than the universal provision of senior schools is better teachers. A poor teacher can teach fairly well on a syllabus with proper text books provided for that syllabus, but as we know, it takes a good teacher to get the best out of being free to teach in the way in which he would like to teach, and to bring, as a good teacher ought to bring, an element of interest into every lesson by associating the lesson with the pupil's daily life and surroundings, or, what surely is equally worth while, to bring into the minds, hearts and souls of the children that faculty of wonder which is so great a possession of the human soul. Many of our modern highly-trained teachers are undoubtedly worse teachers than the old rule-of-thumb men who stuck to their text books.

Mr. COVE: Sheer rubbish.

Sir F. ACLAND: It is true. The new men who have been through courses
have not had time to digest them. They all get little weaknesses on which they are strong.

Mr. COVE: What does the right hon. Gentleman know about it?

Sir F. ACLAND: I have spent more time in this job than in any other.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I just correct the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) who asked what the right hon. Gentleman knows about it? If the hon. Member would come down to Devonshire, he would find out what the right hon. Gentleman knows about it.

Mr. COVE: I thought it was Cornwall.

Sir F. ACLAND: I have taken a great deal of trouble and pains in getting to know my schools, especially the secondary schools, under the education committee of my county. I am not speaking just in the air, and I do say, after very careful conversations with the heads of schools and with our inspectors, and so on, that their considered opinion is that a good deal of the extra courses and training that some of the younger teachers go through do not do the good you would expect it to do, because the students do not have time to think over what they have learned and to turn it into better teaching. Therefore, the point that I am making is that if and when we could really get this uniform system of senior intermediate education united with the present senior classes and the secondary schools into one system of 15½ years of age for everybody, and if we could make that a universal and compulsory system, I believe—

Dr. O'DONOVAN: You cannot get it.

Sir F. ACLAND: Why should the hon. Member say that we cannot get it. You can surely get anything if you try.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: The point of my interjection is that you will get no uniform compulsory system while you develop education only on the side of the children's minds and bodies. In a long speech, the right hon. Gentleman has devoted only a few words to their souls.

Sir F. ACLAND: We rather try to keep off religious subjects. I do not quite take the hon. Gentleman's view. If we can get real freedom for our schools though an intermediate system of education, it will be tremendously worth while taking more pains with the training of teachers and giving them a chance of using their freedom better. A great many of them have learnt enough to teach,
but they have not learnt enough to know how little they really know. if we could only do with our teachers what the Army does with its doctors, after they have had a few years in the schools and realised what a lot there is to learn in the art of teaching young people we should take them away for a year to a sort of special training college where they would not be crammed for degrees, but would have a chance of thinking things over under the very best men that could be picked from the whole of our universities, who would help and inspire them with a knowledge of what teaching can be and what it might be. The teachers would be enormously improved. If we could get only a few colleges taking the younger teachers and giving them a chance of looking round and expanding, it would be well worth while to pay 50 men£1,000 a year simply for the purpose of trying to give imagination, personality and a power of really understanding what education means, to those teachers. The teachers will be able to respond once they are free to teach what they like and if only we can help them to give of their best.
I have tried honestly to put into what 1 have been trying to say a good deal of thought as the result not only of my own experience but of the variety of experience of the officials and teachers whom I have been coming across. I hope that. the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that the idea of a common intermediate system from 11 years of age to 15,i compulsory for everybody, and, thereafter, free for everybody who needs it, is an impossible vision, though it might conceivably be carried out some day in the distant future. I do not think he will. He knows far too much about education to do that. I hope that he will not say what was said in another place, that the fact that we are setting up certain classes under the Unemployment Act is any substitute for better intermediate and secondary education or for raising the school-leaving age or for the completion of the senior school system. To illustrate that, I need only say that in our county, although we have still to build 30 senior schools in order to complete our system, we are only given one central school and four classes under the Unemployment Act, which is lamentably small. if we are to think of it as a contribution towards education.
I believe that the freeing of our intermediate schools from external tests and their levelling up, so that we can have a common system of intermediate education, the improvement of the training of teachers, and the freeing of the higher secondary schools from tests, are things which can be prepared for and got on with at once, and which ought to be part of the educational policy of every Government. If they were, we should be able to get education rather more out of politics and that would be a very good thing. The more one goes about the schools, the more one realises that we have in England and Wales the most splendid raw material, which is better than in any country in the world in the wonderful blend of receptiveness and individuality of our children. If we can only offer them the possibility of taking full advantage of their education, it would be thoroughly worth while that education for all should go on, diverse in its character for everybody up to the age of 15 1/2, until they have got a general secondary education. Our future power as a nation depends upon our tackling these things straight away, and getting on with them.
9.13 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I do not intend to go into such details of the educational system as he has done. but I would say a word regarding what he has said about reorganisation in our elementary schools. I do not see any reason for asking the Parliamentary Secretary to say the word "Go" in this matter. In the recently published report of the Board of Education for 1933, one of the most cheerful things to my mind was the big increase in reorganisation that has taken place during 1933. I am very glad that the Committee has had a second opportunity of discussing the Education Estimates, because there has been a very important statement by the President of the Board of Education in another place since the last Debate. A good many of us felt disappointment with what he said, especially because he held out very little nope for the future. I know that we cannot discuss the raising of the school-leaving age, but I wish that the President had agreed on behalf of the National Government, to the principle of it. This would have involved no legislation and
certainly no Parliamentary time. If he had agreed on behalf of the Government to the principle, we might have got a move on towards the settlement of some of the difficulties which he enumerated in his speech, which have to be solved and got out of the way before legislation can be introduced. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will consider whether something cannot be done in this direction.
I should like to say a few words with regard to some of the things that the President said in another place. With regard to the Unemployment Act, I endorse entirely what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall. We all welcome the instruction centres, but the late Minister or Labour reiterated many times in this House that they were no alternative, and were not intended to be an alternative, to the raising of the school-leaving age, and I think it is a little unfortunate that the President should have used the word "alternative" in his speech, because it is liable, in my opinion, to be misrepresented in different parts of the country. In London, we are told, there is practically no juvenile unemployment, and therefore it seems to me that children of 14 in the London area cannot benefit at all under the Bill as regards these instruction centres. It seems hard on children of 14 that the only qualification for continued education should be unemployment.
I would like to say one or two words about reorganisation. I am specially interested in this subject, because I was fortunate in helping to bring some of these schemes into being in London. Many people doubt the benefit of further education, mainly because they feel that children should not have any more book-learning. I am always answering this objection, which people are continually raising. It is true that before the reorganisations came in there was not time to give a practical bias to the education, but now, with the break at eleven plus, the technical and practical instruction is very much easier to arrange, and there is no doubt that it would be much easier still if the age were extended. We have often heard quoted in the House the statement in the Hadow Report emphasising that the provision of the four years' course
in the reorganised senior schools ought to be achieved before they could produce their full effect, and therefore, when the President says that we have to wait and see, to be quite sure of the success of these reorganised schools, before we consider raising the age, I think that that is hardly fair, because we cannot judge what the full effect will be until we have given a complete four years to the reorganised courses.
In this connection I should like to say that I think we are under a great debt of gratitude to the teachers. When many of these re-organisations started, there were undoubtedly a number of dislocations and upheavals in the schools, but the teachers overcame those difficulties in a very fine spirit. Some of them at the beginning were a little doubtful of these re-organisation schemes, but they put their backs into them, and are largely responsible for the great success that has been attained. I think there can be no doubt that these re-organisations are a great success, and are responsible for having led many people to change their opinions on the length of the school life. This has been the case, not only among educationists, but among industrialists, certainly among social workers, and also among parents. I think, also, that the sympathetic speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary himself have done a great deal to encourage local authorities to apply for powers to put the by-law into operation. I was interested to notice that the hon. Gentleman, speaking only a short time ago, said that there is a pronounced and unmistakable superiority in the intellectual and practical attainments of the children in the re-organised areas. There is no doubt that very useful experiments have already been made in this direction by way of the by-law. I do not wish to go into them in detail, but I think that the East Suffolk one is outstanding as regards its results.
I must refer to the very interesting conference which took place at the County Hall the other day of local authorities in London and Greater London. In all, 33 were represented. Fifteen were in favour of raising the school-leaving age. The others did not vote, but, if silence means consent, I think it shows what the volume of opinion is on this subject. There is no doubt that we are all agreed that it would be far better
to deal with the whole question uniformly up and down the country, but, after the President's speech, I feel that there is little that we can do at this moment beyond urging the Parliamentary Secretary to encourage local authorities to take action under the by-law, because it is only in this way that we shall be able to persuade the Government how widespread and real is the demand.
I know that on this occasion I am not allowed to discuss the question of raising the school-leaving age. If I could, I certainly should. I want to see the school-leaving age raised at least to 16, and provision made for some form of continued part-time education up to the age of 18. I believe that I shall live to see both. I hope that the Government will quickly formulate some long-term policy, and I think that, just as a decrease in hours will probably be part of that policy, so also will be the raising of the school-leaving age. I believe that they must both be part of my long-term policy. I am sure that, if the Government would only formulate that policy, they would retain the confidence of the country, which they have gained by their emergency measures. The President himself, in his speech in another place, admitted that he goes the whole way in wishing for an educated democracy, and believes that, the more complete the democracy, the more education we must have. Knowing how precarious is the hold of democracy on modern Europe to-day, let us at least in this country safeguard ourselves by seeing that our future citizens are properly equipped and educated in every way possible. I believe that only in that way shall we preserve our democracy intact. Surely it is ignorance and the lack of ability to reason that is responsible for wars in the world to-day, and, if we do everything we can to banish both, we shall be playing as important a part in securing peace as any decrease OT increase in armaments could bring about.
9.24 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN: I do not want to prolong the Debate unduly, although I am bound to say that we have too few opportunities for education debates in the House. After all, those of us who desire national progress have to realise that national progress cannot be made entirely on what one might call an industrial, or an economic, or a political front;there
is also an educational front, embracing, if you like, the spiritual and the social aspect. It is on that line that I want to proceed to-night. Although I agree with much, that has been said by the three preceding speakers, I think we must come down straight away to very stern realities. I noticed that in the "Times," on the morning after the speech of the Noble Lord who presides over the destinies of the Board of Education, there was a leading article headed:
Facing Practical Realities.
The stark reality which I have to face, as one who has had some practical experience in teaching and also in an administrative capacity, and which always abides with me, is that 85 per cent. of the children of the nation finish their education, cut off as it were with a knife, at the age of 14. That, to me, is the insurmountable obstacle. When I look at the fact that we as a nation have extended the franchise to the fullest extent, placing in the hands of democracy a very powerful weapon, I think that as a natural corollary we should see that this democracy is equipped so as to be able to use that weapon in a sane and safe manner. I am not one of those who see in education a panacea for all the evils of mankind. I think that possibly education per see does not add greatly to the sum total of human happiness. I say that to show that I am not biased. I do not pose as an expert on education, because my experience is that experts are faddists. I am bound to say that the progress made to-day, if not in the way of standing still, is too slow. I want to reiterate what has been said by the last speaker. It is time that we made a great forward drive. According to figures in the Estimates, one can see that in the year 1937 or 1938 there will be a considerable diminution in the number of children in attendance at schools. The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but something like 1,000,000 fewer children will be in our schools. If that be so, the overriding difficulty of which the Noble Lord spoke in another place, will be greatly lessened in three or four years' time.
I do not want to go into the eight points of my hon. Friend who opened the discussion. I will confine myself to three. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secertary that there are three lines along which a move could be made
at the present time. I suggest, first, that if you have 1,000,000 fewer places in schools, you have no vestige of excuse for keeping on your books a single condemned school. Surely the Board of Education have got a date at the back of their minds when they can give an order to those responsible for black-listed schools that after the year so and so—1st March or 1st April, 1938—these black-listed schools will not be tolerated. The second point, which should meet with the approval of the Parliamentary Secretary, is that reorganisation has not gone on at a pace we could wish. Surely it is not asking too much that at some date these schemes of reorganisation, as foreshadowed by the Hadow Commissioners, should be carried out. I mean by that there should be a complete four-year course in the senior schools.
The third and most important point is the settlement of the vexed question of dual control. I know there has been a great deal of discussion about what is preventing certain things, which nearly everyone desires, happening in the educational world. in my opinion, it is neither finance nor lack of school places, nor lack of teachers, that stops it. The one great obstacle in the way of agreement is that we cannot settle this vexed question of dual control. There ought to be, and I am told there are, conversations going on between the different religious bodies. I hope that is true. I want to know when we are to get the results of their findings. I can see in these times, when people are prepared for agreed measures, no reason why these religious difficulties should hold up the further education of our children.
Rural areas have been referred to. I was recently in Cambridgeshire, and, coming from an industrial area., I realised to the full that England, after all, is still essentially a rural country. I could see the difficulties there. I also saw how in Cambridgeshire they are trying to deal with those difficulties. There was a system of village institutes, which aims at collecting under one roof all the best social, religious, and, I was going to say, spiritual schemes. I thought it would be an excellent thing if such schemes could be brought into every county. It would make for greater happiness and contentment in the countryside. I was sorry to learn that this scheme, which started in Cambridgeshire, had been stopped at its
inception by economy. I do not know how true that is. I know we have got to have a certain amount of industrialism and urbanism, but if we can preserve what is best, in rural life, as in Cambridgeshire, then, I think, it will be all to the country's good.
Speaking the other day in the House an hon. Member referred to the great possibilities of the cinema in the educational system, and he made the rather astounding statement, which I am not bound to accept, that the cinema is having a greater effect on the minds of young people of the country than all the work in the schools and colleges. If there were any truth in that statement, it is high time that the Board of Education saw that the best possible use was made of the cinema in our schools. The Parliamentary Secretary has regularly made enlightening speeches up and down the country, and in his last speech devoted a large part of it to this very subject, showing what great educational influence the cinema could wield. If that is his conviction, and it is mine, how many of our senior schools are fitted with apparatus for carrying out this idea? I have been in many schools in my time, and I certainly know some schools where the cinema is used fairly frequently, but I do not know of any general use of the cinema, and I should like to know if the board are going to encourage it.
I cannot sit down without making one reference to junior instruction centres. The Parliamentary Secretary told us there was likely to be a conference between representatives of the local authorities and, I think, the Board of Education inspectors, or was it the Ministry of Labour inspectors? I do not know, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what has been the result, if any, of those negotiations. While I am most anxious that local authorities and teachers should make the utmost possible use of these junior instruction centres, I cannot at present see that they are going to serve any great educational purpose. That they will have some social use, I agree, but I cannot for the life of me see where there are going to be any continued courses of instruction, and it is the very snippetty nature of the instruction given in these centres which fills me with some alarm, especially
when, as an hon. Member said to-night, we are to accept the junior instruction centres as the only alternatives, for the next two or three years at any rate, to raising the school age. I am bound to say that I shall require a very great deal of satisfying that the Parliamentary Secretary or the inspectors of the Board are likely to be satisfied with the proposed junior instruction centres. I cannot support the Amendment to reduce the Board of Education Vote by £100—my respect for the Parliamentary Secretary alone would prevent my doing that—but I would vote for increasing the Estimate any time.
9.38 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I would like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, but time is going on, and I will refrain, but I would like to make one or two remarks regarding the report of the Board of Education, which has just been issued. It is to many of us unfortunate that the report is so belated, but perhaps it is unavoidable. It is especially unfortunate that the statistics are so belated, because some of them refer to the 31st March, 1933, and some to the end of the summer term, so they are very largely out of date, but I have read the report with very great interest, and I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board on the work that they have done, notwithstanding the great shortage of funds under which they have been working, caused by the efforts at economy. After making all allowances for that, however, one closes the report with a sense of disappointment. The report shows that education is little more than marking
time, when it ought to be marching forward to equip our young people for the new conditions under which they are living.
Reorganisation under the Hadow scheme is going very slowly indeed. Only about 50 per cent. of the children aged 11 and over are in reorganised schools, and barely 35 per cent. of those children are in senior departments. Only 56 per cent. of the black-listed schools have yet been closed or replaced; the effort to deal with over large classes has had a set back; and, as we were told by the hon. Member who opened the Debate, 8,298 classes contained 50 students or
more, a net increase of 310. I was glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon that one of the worst offenders had made good progress in reducing the size of its classes, and I would like to point out that the Board of Education are not primarily to blame for these large classes. The hon. Member below me spoke as if it were the Board of Education's fault, and he spoke of the London County Council's classes, and others too, as being over-large. It is the duty of the local education authorities to see that the classes are not too large, and, of course, it is the duty of the board to supervise and correct them when they are too large, but I feel that the board cannot be blamed for these very large classes when the local authorities do not do their duty.
Reference is made in the annual report to the report of the Consultative Committee on Nursery Schools and Infant Departments, but here, of course, as has been pointed out, progress has been practically nil, owing to the board's policy with regard to nursery schools. I hope we are now going to have a move forward in that direction. Altogether I cannot believe that the board itself is satisfied with the report, but I am disposed to let bygone be bygones if the board will now make up its mind to adopt a progressive policy all round. Economy was very necessary during the financial crisis, and everyone will agree that the local education authorities co-operated heartily with the board in keeping down expenditure wherever possible, but now that the crisis is over, the progressive policy adopted by other Government Departments must be adopted by the Education Department. Everyone will agree that much requires to be done. I hope we may take it for granted that the remaining half of the cut in teachers' salaries
will be restored, without any discussion, by the next Budget.
Next to that comes the raising of the school age. That is the opinion of most educationists, and I hope it will be tackled even earlier than the board now suggest. It certainly was a great disappointment to everyone to hear the statement made by the President of the board in another place the other day. There is extraordinary unanimity among educationists, education authorities, and the public generally on this question of the raising of the school age.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the general raising of the school age requires legislation and, therefore, cannot be discussed now.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have been discussing it for two hours.

Mr. LECKIE: I will not pursue that subject, but I was hoping to be allowed to refer incidentally to it.

Mr. COVE: One slight remark, anyhow.

Mr. LECKIE: With regard to that matter, the desire of many education authorities has been to raise the school age by by-laws, and efforts have been made in many directions. In my own county of Staffordshire, we had a conference of all the education committees not long ago, and there was great unanimity as to the desirability, first of all, of raising the school age, and, if it could not be got in any other way, that it should be got by by-laws, but it was found, on going into the matter, how difficult it was to take any one county and work it in that way. Although the Committee is still in existence and the work is still being proceeded with, there are great difficulties in the way of working it by by-law. I do not think we can expect a great deal to come from that direction, but I hope that if any applications come before the board the Minister will give the matter favourable consideration because of its importance and as a kind of experiment.
Another very necessary matter is the increase of the grant to new schools to 50 per cent. It is an extraordinary thing that for the building of secondary schools the Education Department gives a grant of 50 per cent. Those who are interested in elementary schools feel that this favoured treatment of secondary education should be done away with and that the grant for elementary schools should be raised to 50 per cent. That is only reasonable and I hope the proposal will be considered. There is a great demand for it, I know. It would give an enormous fillip in helping forward the reorganisation which is still so much needed. I know it is wholly a matter of finance, but I put it to the Committee that the financial condition of the country warrants the increased expenditure now. If education is to keep pace with the
times the money should be forthcoming. The Board of Education can go to the -Treasury with a very strong case indeed. The Exchequer is evidently in a generous mood just now. Shipping is being subsidised, farming is being subsidised. Surely it is equally desirable that the children of the nation should get their subsidy in order to improve the education they receive. An educated democracy would be the best possible insurance against the wild, revolutionary ideas floating about Europe to-day. Communism and anarchy feed upon ignorance. Another year's education in the schools would do more to develop the minds and hearts of the young than anything else. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board to begin at once for the great advance which is needed. It cannot be made in a day. But the plans must be got out now, and in two years' time the work could be commenced with a minimum of expense and friction, and with a maximum of profit to the nation as a whole.
9.48 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I agree with about nine-tenths of the speeches that have been made to-night. It is a curious thing that although we customarily think of the National Government as having about five-sixths of the Members of the House behind it, to-night the position of the Parliamentary Secretary has been rather the unenviable position of Athanasius contra mundum. The speeches of those who call themselves pledged supporters of the Government have invariably thrown bouquets at the Government, but those bouquets have really been of the nature of funeral wreaths, and it has been obvious that what they really wanted to do was to bury the Board of Education and not to praise it.
There is only one aspect of the administration of the board about which I want to speak. I want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary on the one subject of the medical inspection of school children as a means of testing malnutrition amongst children. A resolute attempt has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by officials to lull the public conscience to rest on the subject of the malnutrition among children by maintaining, first, that there is no widespread malnutrition amongst
school children, and, secondly, that the arrangements already existing for the feeding of necessitous school children are sufficient to cope with such malnutrition as exists. I say quite bluntly that both those soothing assurances are on the face of them incredible, and that the evidence on which they are supposed to rest is both unsatisfactory in quality and inadequate in quantity.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary himself must recognise that as well as anyone. He must often puzzle over the anomaly that on the one hand we have certain broad, well-known, incontrovertible facts, not single facts but battalions of statistics, which point to widespread and acute poverty, especially in families where there are children to support; and that on the other hand we have the evidence of his own medical inspectors, which assures us that there is really nothing to worry about, that only a negligible fraction of the children, about 1 per cent., are under-nourished, and that as only about 4 per cent. of school children receive meals all must be well. To take only a few instances of the evidence pointing to widespread poverty, there is the fact that last year, at a time when only 212,000 children were receiving free school meals, there were 1,600,000 in receipt of dependents' allowances under unemployment benefit. That number, of course, did not include the. children of agricultural labourers,
hawkers, and so forth, who are not insured and therefore do not draw dependents' allowances. Allowing for the children of those classes there must have been last year, at the time to which the recently published figures refer, at the very least 2,000,000 children whose parents were unemployed. Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously ask us to believe that all of those children, except the 200,000 odd, about one-tenth of the number of unemployed, who got school meals, were adequately and nutritiously fed on 2s. a week each, supplemented by the earnings of elder brothers and sisters and perhaps by granny's old age pension?
There have been lately several inquiries into the question of minimum subsistence needs and the cost of supplying those needs, including food, clothing, heating, lighting, rent and so forth—inquiries, not conducted by left wing politicians but by medical and sociological
experts. Every one of those inquiries has produced a scale of needs and an estimate of the cost of supplying those needs such as could not possibly be realised by a family with several children permanently on unemployment pay, or indeed even by an agricultural labourer or lowly paid town labourer, even if those persons spent every penny they drew on the bare necessities of life and spent every penny to the best possible advantage. Thus the figures of one of the best known, though by no means one of the highest estimates, that of the committee set up by the "Week-end Review," under the chairmanship of that very cautious and conservative statistician and sociologist, Dr. A. L. Bowley, reckoned the cost of a child's food at from 2s. 9d. a week for a baby a year old, to 5s. a week for a boy over 14 years of age. Does anyone suppose that that amount of money could be spent on food by an unemployed man or an ill-paid wage earner?
Turning from theory to practice, I have here some costing returns of children's homes under the Poor Law. What do they say of food and clothing? The highest food figure is for Millbrook, Cornwall, which is 9s. 7d. a week. The lowest is Rocking, Essex, which spends 3s. 21/2d. The medium, which comes half- way down the scale, is about 5s. for food and 4s. 7d. for clothing. The estimate of the Ministry of Health's own Advisory Committee is that the food of a child in a Poor Law home, supposing there are not fewer than 200 children in the home, and that all food is bought at contract prices, would cost about 4s. 6d. a week. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, when he gives us reassuring statements about the malnutrition of children in the schools, has ever asked himself this question, which I venture to put to him: "What is the explanation of the conflict of testimony between the experts?" On the one hand, we have the experts who assure us that if a child is to get the quantity and quality of diet
that it needs for the full development of mind and body, that diet cannot cost less than a sum which, he knows perfectly well, cannot be afforded by an unemployed parent living on insurance pay or by a poorly paid working-class parent. We have, on the other hand, the testimony of the school medical staff that only 1 per cent. of children are suffering from under-
feeding. Both sets of experts cannot be right. Which is right and which wrong?
I have often pondered this question, and I venture to give the Committee my conclusions. Broadly speaking, I believe that the school medical staff is wrong, for reasons which not they, but the system which they have to administer, is responsible. Just consider what that system is, and ask yourself whether it is a satisfactory way of testing malnutrition. The routine medical examination takes place three times in a school child's life—at 5 years of age, at 8 years of age, and at 12 years of age. Thus four years elapse between the second and third of these routine inspections. How can malnutrition be tested in that way? You can test organic defects in the child, for they remain permanently no doubt, but you cannot test the constantly varying symptoms which arise from the conditions under which a child lives. What would anybody think if we attempted to test a child's life in that way in a private family. Supposing one parent said to another, "Tommy seems rather under the weather, and I think he had
better see the doctor," and the father replied, "Do not fuss, my dear, the doctor examined Tommy three years and nine months ago and found him quite all right. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to do anything now."
I shall be told that the test of malnutrition among children does not depend only on these three medical examinations, and that it is the business of the individual school teacher to note the preliminary symptoms of malnutrition and to point them out first to the head teacher, who, if he thinks it is necessary, will send the child for a special medical examination. Is that a satisfactory way of testing malnutrition? Is the school teacher competent to do it, and is it reasonable to expect it of him? I have the greatest admiration for school teachers as a body, and I think they do wonders to look after the moral and physical welfare of their children, as well as their teaching. Consider the position of a young man of 23 or 25, perhaps a graduate, faced with a class of 40 or 50 or even 60 children. His main idea, is naturally on the job of teaching the children. He is not trained as a doctor or as a nurse, and he is not a mother. How is he to detect in that large group
of children ranged in front of him the symptoms of early malnutrition? This Medical Officer of Health says:
We cannot register malnutrition like we can register birth or death. It is not an event, but a process. It may be so subtle and complex as to escape definition. We can only determine its presence by clinical examination of the individual, by taking height and weight, or by blood tests—and more particularly by the relationship between these data.
Yet the school teacher dealing with a large class is expected to judge whether there are symptoms of malnutrition among the children in front of him, and whether they ought to be examined by a doctor'? What is the remedy? Doubtless a most effective remedy would be a more effective system of medical inspection of the children, and that they should be examined not three times during their school lives, but every year at least, and possibly every term. I know we shall be told that that is impossible because it would cost too much, although there again we have the evidence of the chief medical officer. He says:
One word should be said upon the second question, 'Would an increased expenditure producing even better results than at present he a true national economy?' The answer from a medical point of view must clearly he in the affirmative, though not necessarily in the affirmative for all branches of the school medical service.
Is there no way of solving the question otherwise than by a very much more elaborate scheme of medical inspection? There are various ways in which I suggest the system could be improved. First, if it is not possible medically to examine the children more frequently, surely it is possible to measure them and weigh them. We are told by many experts that the simplest test of a child's physical condition is weighing and measuring. In the secondary schools, I believe, they weigh and measure the children annually and sometimes every term. That is an operation that can easily and simply be carried out. I want to suggest, further, that not nearly enough is made of school nurses. It is assumed that there is no middle grade of test which can be used. to detect malnutrition between the highly trained and expensive doctors and the busy school teachers. Why do not the school authorities use trained nurses more? They could easily be arranged
with the local nursing association. If a trained nurse attended at certain hours of the week at every large school in poor neighbourhoods, they could well be able detect the early signs of malnutrition. It would be much more simple for the school teacher to say, "Go down and see the nurse," than to send him to the head teacher and from the head teacher to a clinic two or three miles away. I know that some local authorities use school nurses, but not anything like thoroughly enough, and many do not. I suggest that the tests and standards of school medical inspection should be much more carefully regulated and standardised. Nobody can read in this report the district reports from medical inspectors without being struck by the fact that their standards are always comparative. They do not consider whether the health of the child is satisfactory, but whether it is better or worse than it was two, five or seven years ago.
We should have very different results if, instead of that standard of comparison, the medical inspectors were asked to compare the children in the elementary schools with the children in the secondary schools, or with those in the great public schools. Even if we carried out all these changes and had more universal and scientific standards of medical inspection, even if we supplemented medical inspection by school nursing and weighing and measuring, I do not believe that even then it would be a satisfactory test of malnutrition. I believe that there is one perfectly simple change which could be affected without costing any money at all directly, which would really provide a satisfactory test of nutrition, and that is to substitute an income test for the inspection test. At present there are a few local authorities which have passed a scheme based on the parents' income. Sometimes the test has been placed far too high, but the policy of the Board has always been to discourage the income test. There was recently a case where the Cambridge local authority drew up a scheme worked on an income scale to see whether children should be granted a ration of milk per day. The Board of Education turned down the proposals of the local authority and demanded that they should substitute a medical test. They said:
Free meals should be definitely associated with the educational capacity of
children and not based on an assumption that the children are necessarily suffering from actual or prospective malnutrition because the family income is below the scale selected by the authority.
What an economical Board of Education. Before an authority is allowed to decide whether a child ought to have a third of a pint of milk a day, at a cost of one halfpenny, for five school days per week, the child is to be sent to a doctor living, perhaps, two miles away. Of the income and the medical test, which is the more reliable? Triennial inspection of children supplemented by the casual observation of school teachers trained for their own work but untrained in health questions, or the relentless logic of a scientifically based, carefully worked out income scale? If the parents' income be such that it, is impossible to provide out of that income the minimum requirements of healthy existence for a family depending on it, what other reduction can you draw than that the children are underfed. I they are properly fed, one of two things is happening: either they are getting enough food at the expense of other necessities or at the expense of the parents and usually the mother. Both these things usually
happen. If you have a low-grade family, that does not care about the decencies of appearance, they may out of their small incomes provide enough food at the expense of keeping the children in the slums and dressed in rags, but a self-respecting family with high standards will underfeed the children in order to live in a decent neighbourhood. The only way to get over both difficulties is to adopt the scientific income test worked out, not by local authorities swayed by various kinds of political bias, but by the board as a whole using the existing scientific data or data specially worked out for the purpose. We should know, if the income scale was being worked out for the country and every child that came below it was given the privilege of free meals, that there would not be a single underfed child except where the underfeeding was the parents' fault, and then pressure could' be brought to bear through the law.
There is a strong feeling in this country that there ought to be a sort of Plimsoll line for children, and even in times of economic distress the children at least should be kept above the bitter waters of poverty. The nation is no longer in the trough of the wave. The subjects
that have been occupying Parliament lately have not been poverty or unemployment, but the problem of over-production. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under-consumption"] Yes, under-consumption, and people all over the country are asking themselves: Here we have a National Government with a vast majority behind it; what value is that Government to us if it cannot solve the problem of meeting the over-production of milk, fish, meat, green vegetables, which cannot be brought into relation with the need of children who are suffering in mind, body and character from a lack of all these kinds of necessities? All the contribution which the report can bring towards the solving of that problem is to assure us that actually out of a school population of 6,000,000 children between 200,000 and 300,000 are getting school meals on school days, some of them free and some of them at their parents' expense. It is one of the test questions for the National Government, whether it can solve that problem, and it is not going to do it by any
such report as that placed in our hands to-day.
10.12 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: If I do not follow the last speaker in a discussion of the problem of malnutrition among children, I hope it will not be thought that upon these benches we are not interested in the subject. On the contrary, we have the utmost interest in it, and we are entirely at one with her in any suggestions she may make for meeting the deficiency of our medical services in the schools. Obviously, unless children are physically fit, they cannot be expected to be able to imbibe the mental provision that is available to them in the schools. I do not want, in the short time at our disposal, to dwell on the subject, but to turn to one limited area of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West), in his most interesting speech this evening, said that there were some eight points which he would like to submit to the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, if I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman diligently took note of every one of the points. It is, if you like, a re-presentation, in summarised form, of a manifesto which my friends on this side of the House issued at the week-end, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman has already provided himself with a copy for the purposes of greater accuracy.
In the points my hon. Friend adumbrated, there are two on which I want to say one or two words. They are the question of the education of the eleven plus child, and the raising of the school age, in so far as they relate to our discussion here to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) spoke of a system of planning that he visualised which might cover the period from the age of eight to 24 or 25, or at least he almost got to that. I cannot range over that whole ground, but I do want to invite the Government to tell us whether they are considering this problem of provision for the eleven plus child. In my judgment, the Government's policy is taking a wrong direction in this matter. In support of the proposition, I should like to draw attention to a sinister paragraph—I can call it nothing else—on page 19 of the annual report where the board gaily say:
It will be seen that there are no longer any schools entirely free. The number of schools charging fees of six guineas or less has now been reduced from 239 to 88.
That is to say, we are not merely now well on the road to terminating free secondary education, for that is done, but we are doing more. We are moving steadily in the direction where fees are to be stabilised at a figure which I submit is very largely impossible of attainment to large numbers of people up and down the country. I know the hon. Gentleman will tell me—I do not controvert it—that, to meet people of that sort, there are special places provided, but my proposition still remains. The direction of the policy is wrong. In other words, I mean that we really must get our minds set once again upon the aim of the achievement of free secondary education. The reasons for that are patent to anyone who will reflect upon it. First of all, there is the argument that my hon. Friend put at the beginning of the Debate, the proposition, which is obvious to everyone and is accepted by everyone, that we ought to provide equal opportunity for rich and poor, and you cannot provide equal opportunity for rich and poor until you have free secondary education without the artificial impediment which wealth or the lack of it provides. I have never yet been able to understand what the argument is for giving free elementary education and denying free secondary
education, for to me education is a continuing process. It does not stop at some artificial age-11 or 12. It continues and, when you impose some special barrier at about the age of 11, you are doing something which does not at all appertain to the connotation of education as we ought to understand it.
I should like to plan for the 11 plus child, keeping clearly in my mind what the Government claims that it is doing—I do not deny that it is doing its best to achieve it—namely, to realise what is called Hadow reorganisation. I said during the last Debate that I very much doubt as to whether Hadow reorganisation is in fact meaning very much more in many parts of the country than mere transference from one school to another. May I put the proposition in relation to a rural area. In a rural area you must clearly provide secondary schools for a certain number of children. You are also going to provide, I take it, reorganised education for the 11 plus child as well with a view to providing for what I may call the practically minded child. I am profoundly convinced that much of our secondary education effort, good as it has been, has fallen short in this particular, that it has not kept in mind the practically minded child and has rather catered too exclusively for the academically minded child. If you are going to cater for that type of child in the contryside— I should be in favour of doing it, everywhere—clearly, you must face up to this proposition. Can you afford education for the 11 plus child which caters in different school establishments for the child who wants an academic form of instruction and for another child in another department which is more practically minded?
In my judgment, the rural area cannot stand that double burden. You must, therefore, have a school with a sort of multiple bias scheme where the practically-minded child and the academically-minded child will both be catered for under the same roof, and, if you like, be in the charge of the same master, the school being provided undoubtedly with a larger staff. In order to do that, you must face up to this fact. I hope that the Government are making up their minds; it is bound to come upon them sooner or later. You cannot go on building up a system of education for the eleven-plus children and call one set of
schools elementary because you run them under elementary school regulations, and have another set of schools,doing a different type of work but of the same standard, or, at any rate, not of a much higher standard, run under secondary school regulations. The more you develop your eleven-plus senior school the more you will develop a rivalry, or even worse, a sort of jealousy, between teachers doing the same quality of work in school except that they happen to be catering, the one for the practically-minded child and the other for the academically-minded child. If that be true—and I think that the proposition is a, sound one—you are bound to face up to the position that all education from 11 upwards must be called secondary and run under secondary school regulations. In addition, if your Hadow school is to be free, as it has been up to now, then clearly the secondary school must be free, too, if all are to be treated on the same basis.
I plead for free secondary education for the eleven-plus child for this further reason. You are not going to persuade parents everywhere that the provision made in the Hadow school is as good as that contained in the secondary school until they are under precisely the same regulations. If they are under the same regulations, they will be catered for, or at least they can be catered for, in exactly the same way as are playing fields' space, science buildings and so on, and—this is very important educationally—the transfer, especially if they are under the same roof, from the practical side to the academic side, or vice versa, can be easily carried out when the child's aptitude has been discovered round about 13 or 14 years of age. That is important, because you cannot find out at the age of 11 what a child's special interests are going to be. Therefore, they ought to work together until some age is arrived at when you are able to judge as to the aptitude of the child. I urge ' that the Government should consider the question of free secondary education and make all education from 11 upwards secondary, that is, run under secondary school regulations.
The third thing I want to say—and here I come to a part of the subject which, in a sense, is controversial, and in a way not even relevant to the discussion, but I
am going to relate it to the by-law side of the question, and not to the legislative side—is that we have had in the Press recently overwhelming evidence as to the movement of public opinion in respect of the raising of the school age by by-law. The hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) called attention to a conference which was held in London under the auspices of the London County Council recently, and said that of some 30 authorities gathered together, 15 voted in favour, and the others did not vote. If we left it there the Committee might get a wrong impression. The others, I understand, did not vote not because they were against the proposal but because they had no authority to vote one way or the other.
The same thing applies in the Midlands. The same cry is being raised in Lancashire, the same question is being discussed in Yorkshire, and all over the country not individual authorities but groups of authorities are now looking at this more in a regional sense than they have been inclined to do for some time. In the absence of legislation which I should prefer, because the matter would then be dealt with nationally, the next best thing is to do it on a regional basis. I am not going to exaggerate my case, and I admit that there would be difficulties on the borders of these regions, but the difficulties would be minimised enormously if this matter was taken in hand not by individual authorities but by groups of authorities, and I hope that the Government will look at the movement to do it on a regional basis in a more sympathetic way than they have hitherto.
Let me say one word on a gap which is still left in our educational system. There are faults and blots in our elementary system, some class rooms are bad, some buildings are bad, and our teachers are overworked and classrooms overcrowded, but broadly speaking our elementary educational system is good. The same can be said of our secondary system in relation to the academically minded child. But there is still one great shortcoming attaching to our educational system, and it is our failure to implement a more fully developed technical education than we have yet done. I know that there are honourable exceptions. Many individual towns in
Lancashire and Yorkshire and other parts of the country run their own technical institutions at great expense to themselves, carrying almost intolerable financial burdens without adequate aid from the Government. But it is done in too much of an individualistic kind of way. It is not done sufficiently in a regional way. Speaking as one who is interested in the Principality I see a reference in the annual report to the conference which the hon. Member addressed last year in Cardiff on the question of trying to introduce a regional agreement in relation to technical education for South Wales. I am very interested in this proposal and am sorry that the hon. Member was not able to record better success at that conference than was, in fact, the case. I hope he has not given up hope, and that he is still pegging away, because in that area, where there are so many valleys, in which there is only one industry, namely mining, and if they lose that they lose everything. The case for the inter-relation of the
technical educational efforts of all the authorities in South Wales is overwhelming, if it can possibly be secured.
What is true of South Wales, is probably true of other parts of the country. Here, I think, is a gap but it is a gap which can be closed. At least we can do a good deal to bridge it if we continue education for all to the age of 15 or 16, and arrange that our technical instruction courses should start immediately after the age of 15 or 16, thus saving a good deal of the time now wasted in recapitulating work which the children have already done but which they have forgotten in the intervening period after leaving school. I plead with the Government once again to consider the question of the child of eleven plus. I admit in advance the argument which the hon. Gentleman will probably put forward that the proposal means more expenditure. You cannot have all these teachers on the secondary scale without involving extra cost. Buildings and equipment may also cost more, but in the long run it would be profitable educational expenditure. I also plead with the Government, if they cannot legislate for the raising
of the school age, at least to say that they are prepared to consider the question regionally and to say it more emphatically than they have done up to the present. Lastly, I plead
for some effort to stimulate the provision of technical instruction throughout the country. I am sure I shall carry every hon. Member with me when I say that we are passing through a very difficult time industrially and otherwise. As we mechanise industry, men are losing their sense of craftsmanship and of personal worth, in the presence of the overwhelming machine which seems to be mastering their lives. There is one instrument and one endowment which can enable the individual to save his personality from mechanisation. That is education, and it is on that account that we are so keen for its advance.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am sure that the Committee are grateful to hon. Members opposite for having made it possible to have a second discussion upon the Education Estimates. When the Vote was last considered, owing to circumstances over which we had no control, the Debate was cut short at half-past seven o'clock and many of us then looked with sorrow at hon. Members who had been sitting all the afternoon, so to speak, in the pavilion with their pads on, but had had no opportunity of getting an innings. There may still be some hon. Members who have not been able to display their strokes but other hon. Members have had their opportunities and the Committee is grateful to them for the contributions which they have made. If I may keep up the metaphor the hon. Member who opened this discussion today played an extremely dashing innings. As far as I could see he hit out at everything. Towards the end of my remarks, I propose to deal with some of the chances which he gave because some of his shots were in the air.
I would like to say a word or two first on the extremely interesting and instructive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). He touched on an aspect of senior school education which corresponds, I think, to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) also has in mind, and that is that the line of the development of these senior schools should be a post-primary system parallel with the existing secondary school system. As an actual method of progress it is attractive, and I think that in time it may well be that
these senior schools will become an intermediate school system, so that the same age period in the secondary school as we know it to-day and the same age period in the senior school will form an intermediate system from which will lead, as an apex, a system of higher secondary schooling for those children who are selected as suitable for it from the intermediate schools. But that ideal is not practical politics at the moment, and we have to be realistic and make the best we can of our existing situation. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall disparaged the effect of external examinations, and I am in considerable agreement with him, although at the moment it has passed the wit of man to devise any system which can dispense with the external examination. At the same time, as he knows, this question of secondary school examinations has been occupying our attention and the attention of the Secondary Schools Examination Council, and I am hoping that we shall in due course at any rate ameliorate the admitted handicap which the external examination places upon secondary schools.
The right hon. Gentleman also indicated that. we should teach more civics in. the schools—more knowledge of our Constitution, of our local government and so forth. I think there is a good deal to be said for his contention, but I am bound to say that I was somewhat shaken in my view when I heard the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) interject, "What type of civics ate you going to teach—Tory, Liberal,Labour or Communist?" [An Hon.MEMBER: "Or Fascist."] Or Fascist. If that is going to be the result of teaching civics, for Heaven's sake let us have none of it. But I believe the right hon. Gentleman thinks more highly of the capacity of our teachers to teach important matters of that sort fairly and without any bias at all. Before I part from my right hon. Friend's speech may I once more hope that he will dismiss from his mind the impression that there is any standstill order in his county in regard to reorganisation. It may be that I failed to make the position clear to him, but, if I
recollect rightly, only six months ago he came to see us with a deputation, and it was certainly my intention at that time to disabuse him of that idea. I should not like it to go
forth from this House to his county that there is any standstill order upon reorganisation in his area. I know that he has peculiar difficulties in his area, arising from the large number of scattered hamlets and small schools, and that is no doubt responsible to some extent for the slow progress which he is making; but I took the opportunity only last week of speaking in that area, and congratulated the county on the progress it was making in spite of those difficulties.

Mr. M0RGAN JONES: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase, "In his area" three times. Does that imply that "his area" is excluded from a standstill which does apply to other areas?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Certainly not. I mentioned the right hon. Baronet's area because that was the area to which he drew my attention. The hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) was dissatisfied with something which was said elsewhere by my noble Friend. I am not able to quote the statement; neither was she, but I read it, and I could see no justification for saying that in the view of my noble Friend instructional centres were an alternative to the raising of the school-leaving age. As far as I understood the argument, it was perfectly sound. The juvenile instructional centres are necessary as soon as they can be brought into operation, probably before the year is out, because the problem of the unemployed child is urgent, and cannot be left during the time which the raising of the school leaving age must inevitably take to be brought into operation.
The hon. Lady advocates the by-law system, but I think that she would agree with hon. Members opposite that, on the whole, the by-law system is not advisable in isolated cases. On that there is general agreement in the Committee. The hon. Lady asked me, "What about regional by-laws?" I can only say that to the best of my recollection the county of Lancashire, which might be treated as a regional by-law area, definitely turned the idea down. I am speaking from recollection, but I think the same can be said of the West Riding of Yorkshire. So far as I know no proposal has been put up from any area for a regional by-law.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) mentioned a point in connection with the use of the cinema in schools. I have not the information as to the number in use, but I 'should think that there are very few. I should like to see more if possible. On the other hand, our knowledge of the use of cinematograph projectors in schools is in its infancy. We have a very great deal to learn, and we ought to go slowly and cautiously. It would be unwise, even if it were possible, to urge a universal distribution of cinema apparatus and projectors in schools until we know a good deal more about the methods of teaching and the use of the machine.
The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) complained about the slow progress of reorganisation. I dare say that reorganisation will never make the swift progress which all of us would like, until it is finally completed. I am surprised at his complaint, because only a very short time ago, when I spoke upon these Estimates, I gave figures showing that in March, 1931, there were 1,350 departments qualified as senior and containing 319,000 children of 11 years of age and over. Two years later, in March, 1933, there were 2,340 senior departments containing 700,000 children of 11 and over. In two years, therefore, the number of senior children had more than doubled and I wish I could say trebled. It is surprising to be told that reorganisation is proceeding so slowly as to be almost at a 'standstill.
The hon. Lady for the English Universities (Miss Bathbone) has dealt with me as Athanasius contra herself, if not against the world. She is very much dissatisfied with the system of medical inspection and inspection by school teachers with a view to ascertaining the amount of malnutrition which exists in the schools. She says that from the figures which are to be obtained from the school medical officers' reports and from various local authorities, the statistics that we give are incredible. She says that the evidence is unsatisfactory in quality and, I think, in quantity. It is very easy for the hon. Lady to say that, but I cannot help feeling that, having regard to the difficulties of the position and the complexities of the diagnosis, the medical officer is just as
well qualified to express an opinion on this subject as the hon. Lady herself. Any Department which desires to get the best evidence and the best expert opinion must take note of the evidence given and the opinion expressed by the medical officers and the reports of school teachers. After all, there is a number of malnourished children. That is the hon. Lady's first premise. Her next premise is that that mal-nourishment sometimes occurs on account of poverty; and her conclusion is that, therefore, all poor children must be mal-nourished. That is the syllogism that the hon. Lady has constructed.

Miss RATHBONE: May I suggest that the syllogism is rather that, if the minimum amount required for keeping the family is x,and the income of the family is— x, the children belonging to that family cannot be well nourished?

Mr. IRAMSBOTHAM: I have not time to make the calculation, but I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady's argument appears to suffer from that distressing fallacy known as the "undistributed middle." The point is whether malnutrition is due to poverty, or whether there are other good reasons, and whether the hon. Lady would not do a great deal more good for the cause to which she is so devoted, and which she has so much at heart, by using her great influence to impress upon all concerned the necessity for a better understanding of the diet that is given, in homes. We are doing what we can. Hon. Members appear to dissent from that, but they will find, from the reports of medical officers all over the country, that one of their great difficulties is that, when children come to them showing signs of malnourishment or under-nourishment, it is not always due so much to poverty in the home as to the improper and inadequate diet that is supplied to them, though it is true that it may occur when the income of the home is not large enough to get many of the provisions that they should have. I believe, from what I can gather, that, taking the diet of all classes of the community, too much in the way of cereals is consumed, and too little in the way of green vegetables. If that be the case—and it is borne out by certain evidence that we have—I am sure that a great deal could be done to diminish the evil of
under-nourishment by better lessons in hygiene and cookery, and by better knowledge in the homes of the country as to what is the right diet, giving the proper supplies of vitamins and so forth—

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that green vegetables are much more expensive than cereals, and cannot be purchased by town dwellers who receive but small wages?

Viscountess ASTOR: While the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the real question is not so much one of poverty, because every expert could solve it even in the case of the poorest children, does he not think that the quickest way of dealing with it would be by open-air nursery schools, where the children get proper nourishment, and the parents are taught how to keep them properly without spending a penny more money?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I now propose to deal with the hon. Member who opened the Debate. I have just had put into my hand a publication on "Labour and Education," and I am bound to say, though I have not read it carefully, that it seems to contain more inaccuracies in 12 pages than any other pennyworth I have known.

Mr. WEST: My statements were based on the figures for 1933.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I hope I have not done the hon. Member an injustice, but the last eight points given as the object of the Labour party are almost verbatim from this pamphlet with the slogan, "Full Steam Ahead." That is precisely the same slogan that was used by an ex-President of the Board of Education, and we all know where it led him. This is the same programme we have had produced by the Labour party for years, with the same complete obliviousness of cost. There is one thing they have forgotten. There is not one word on voluntary schools in this pamphlet, which is a complete resume of the Labour party educational programme. Here we have proposals to raise the school-leaving age to 15 and then to 16 with the expenditure of millions of pounds, and there is not one word on voluntary schools. I almost think they have forgotten the Scurr Amendment. What is one to say of a policy that takes no account of a question of that kind? The right hon.
Baronet said, very reasonably, that there are one or two things to do first. That is one of them. As regards the facts and figures and various accusations made by the hon. Member opposite based on this pamphlet and against the present administration, I would say that, as far as capital expenditure is concerned, I gathered from his speech that there is a standstill on new buildings which has lasted now for two years. We have heard enough of the word "embargo" to weigh the truth of that. Let me tell the Committee that the last figure I have on that subject which for the first quarter of this year shows that the capital expenditure authorised was slightly under £1,500,000, while in the corresponding quarter of 1933 the figure was a little over £500,000, so that there has been an increase in capital expenditure of about £1,000,000. I hope after that we shall hear less of the word "embargo."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to attack this pamphlet. We want to know whether he is attacking the expenditure during our period of office in 1930–31?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I shall come to that. The hon. Member took the question of large classes. Here again in the last year there has been a decrease of no less than 2,100 large classes, and that reduction is larger than any in the last five years. I read in this pamphlet that—

Mr. WEST: The report says 300 more classes with over 50 children—the hon. Gentleman's own report, not the pamphlet.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The report is up to March, 1933, and I am giving figures up to March, 1934.

Mr. COVE: Let us have the Estimates discussed.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Hon. Members are well within their province in attacking the Board of Education, but they must not be surprised when I show that they are wrong, and that so far from being restrictive and so far from reducing educational expenditure and efficiency, we are in fact enlarging it. When I turn to the first complete year of the Socialist party's period of office, 1930–31, I find that the reduction in large classes was 1,446 in that year, whereas in this year, 1933–34, the reduction is much larger, namely, 2,100. I find—

Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about the Estimates?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I find that this pamphlet talks about privileged classes who have hitherto controlled educational policy and who do not regard the education of the workers' children as a matter of any great importance. What about the privileged classes who controlled educational policy in 1930–31? It seems to me that the policy of some hon. Members opposite, certainly as evinced in this pamphlet, which formed the foundation of their speeches, shows three characteristics. One of them is a love of a grandiose and spectacular scheme of educational development, involving enormous expenditure, without any idea of how it could be paid for; the second characteristic is a wealth of nebulous aspirations and impalpable platitudes, to which nobody can take any exception because they mean so little and lead nowhere; and the third is destructive, and I can only say ill-informed, criticism of the daily and hourly work which is going on in the administration of education and an inability to give credit to thousands of

people who are doing modest, humble work in education and giving their services in securing a sure and steady advance. These criticisms are based, it seems to me, upon a perpetual comparison of expenditure, as if pounds, shillings and pence were everything and you could actually measure a child's worth and progress in terms Of gold. In future, speeches such as we have heard from the Mover of the Amendment would be more effective if the criticism were more constructive, and if we could get our minds away from bricks and mortar and from the spectacular and sensational, to the humdrum but very important things of the class room and the playground; and we should welcome advice concerning curriculum, the kind of training that should be given, the place that agriculture should hold in rural schools, the cinema, the wireless, examinations and a hundred and one things that do not make headlines or political capital, but do make education.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,109,918, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 178.

Division No. 338.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Healy, Cahir
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
John. William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontyprldd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leonard, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. D. Craham and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Christie, James Archibald
Elliston. Captain George Sampson


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Apsley, Lord
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Aske, Slr Robert William
Conant, R. J. E.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cook. Thomas A.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craven-Ellis, William
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Baldwin Webb, Colonel J.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Fox, Sir Gifford


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crossley, A. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bateman, A. L.
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Gibson, Charles Granville


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Parism[...]'th,C.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bernays, Robert
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Gluckstein, Louis Hait[...]a


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Goff, Sir Park


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N)


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Grentell, E. C. (City of London)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Grimston, R. V.


Carver, Major William H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mills, Major J. D, (New Forest)
Scone, Lord


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mline, Charles
Selley, Harry R.


Harbord, Arthur
Melton, A. Hugh Eisdaie
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n K'dine,C.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Munro, Patrick
Somervell, Sir Donald


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Orr Ewing, I. L,
Stevenson, James


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Patrick. Colin M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Peat, Charles U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jennings, Roland
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M.
Templeton, William P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Sir Luke


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M,
Thomson, sir Frederick Charles


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Titchneld. Major the Marquess of


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Train, John


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Liewellin, Major John J.
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Remer, John R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Rickards, George William
William Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Robinson, John Roland
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Womersley, Sir Waiter


McKie, John Hamilton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noak[...]s,


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.



Makins, Brigadier-General[...]' Ernest
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Manning ham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salt, Edward W.
Commander Southby and Dr.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
 Morris-Jones.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savery, Samuel Servington



Resolution agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(1) to provide for the establishment of a fund (hereinafter referred to as the cattle fund ') under the administration and control of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the appropriate Ministers ');
(2) to provide for authorising the Treasury to make, during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, advances to the cattle fund, not exceeding in the aggregate three million pounds, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and for requiring that any advances made to the rattle fund out of the Consolidated Fund shall be repaid out of moneys pro-
1078
vided by Parliament before the end of that financial year; and to authorise the payment into the cattle fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as Parliament may determine;
(3) to provide for authorising the appropriate Ministers to make out of the cattle fund payments to producers of cattle in respect of sales of steers, 'heifers or cow-heifers, or carcases thereof, effected in the United Kingdom by such producers during a period beginning on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, being payments at a rate which—

(a) in the case of any live animal, does not exceed five shillings per hundredweight; or
(b)in the case of any carcase, does not exceed nine shillings and four pence per hundredweight;
(4) to provide for the appointment of a cattle committee by the appropriate Ministers, and for authorising the appropriate Ministers with the approval of the Treasury to pay out of the cattle fund the remuneration of the members, staff and agents of that committee, and any other expenses incurred by the committee or by the appropriate Ministers in connection with the matters aforesaid;
(5) to provide for the marking of imported cattle and for such matters as are incidental to, or consequential on, the matters hereinhefore mentioned."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Elliot, Sir John Gilmour, Sir Godfrey Collins, and Mr. Duff Cooper.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to provide for establishment of a Cattle Fund; for the making of payments and advances to the said fund out of moneys provided by Parliament and out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; for the making of payments out of the Cattle Fund to producers of cattle in respect of the sale by them, during a limited period, of certain cattle, or carcases of certain cattle; for the marketing of imported cattle; for the appointment of a Cattle Committee; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid ";presented accordingly, and read the First
time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [Lords.]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.